6 ms·

The statement makes clear what I had suspected, as a lawyer, from the outset: Lessig, some criminal defense attorneys, and a few other parties have mounted a wi

The statement makes clear what I had suspected, as a lawyer, from the outset: Lessig, some criminal defense attorneys, and a few other parties have mounted a witchhunt that has little to do with the case in hand. I should add that I'm not far from Lessig politically, and I don't have any strong disagreement with open-information advocates. But Lessig turned this case into something it shouldn't have been, and he benefits from that personally. Aaron's lawyer, a partner at a major firm, is using this case for his own personal publicity, and that is a shame too. "Follow the money" works for people who manipulate hackers too, not just those who oppose them. I've noticed a lot of legal mistakes in this forum. To start with, the attempt here wasn't "victimless," and the law routinely punishes unsuccessful attempts even when nobody is hurt. "Computer hacker offered plea deal of six-months in minimum-security prison after seeking to make an expensive archive that generates significant revenue public" wouldn't arouse anger among anyone except extremists. It might arouse political disagreement, or even a small protest, but not a call to fire prosecutors. What it aroused before Aaron's suicide was a small effort to raise money for his legal defense, which didn't really go anywhere. If we're going to be rational, that shouldn't change when a defendant commits suicide while the case is pending. There's other manipulative PR worth identifying. Aaron's lawyer said that he told the prosecutor his client was a potential suicide risk. How does anyone who reflects for a minute think that a prosecutor's office should respond to that. They did what they usually do, which is to tell the lawyer that they could revoke bail and monitor the client if that was what the client wanted. What else should they have done? Do we think all charges against suicidal people should be dropped?

edsu 14y ago
Who was the victim?
- tptacek 14y ago
  MIT, JSTOR, and publishers with JSTOR contracts. Not liking the victim doesn't make them not a victim. I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment, for what it's worth.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    Then justify the distinction of Trespass: up to 30 days in jail and/or 100$ fine !!!COMPUTER!!! trespass: Years and years in jail, hundreds of thousands of dollars fine, Federal felony. Yeah. SOUNDS LEGIT.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Your comment has nothing to do with mine.
  - edsu 14y ago
    JSTOR settled, and so were no longer a victim. http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz just sayin'.
  - gruseom 14y ago
    > I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment, for what it's worth. I'd be interested to hear why, if you haven't burned out on the subject... which presumably you haven't, since you just commented on it.
- sociotech 14y ago
  I agree that that's the right question. The intended "victims" were journals and JSTOR. I'm glad JSTOR didn't lean heavily on the prosecution, but they're not the only party who has a stake in this, and it's routine for government not to be simply a "victim's rights" organization that lets private people tell them what to do. Many small journals depend on subscription fees from services like JSTOR. But look, I'm not saying the law is perfect. There are whole encyclopedias written on legal theory about people's responsibilities to follow arguable but imperfect laws, and that is a big debate. The essence of the case here is that a "long ranger" activist who acts to publicize a massive database does threaten a significant financial disruption to many parties, and that is "harm" even under JS Mill's "harm principle." It's not like possessing drugs (which of course people go to harder jails for 20 years for possessing). If I am recalling correctly, a key point in the government's case was that Aaron was going to distribute the documents to the world had he succeeded. If so, they would have had to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If Aaron had a good case that he was just downloading the documents for his own personally curiosity, he would probably have won, and it would be easier to say the prosecution was overblown. But all that seems to have happened here is that the government offered 6 low-security months to someone who the government believed it could prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, was intending to undermine the revenue model of a significant part of the world's academic infrastructure. That doesn't mean that revenue model is praiseworthy, but the law doesn't let you take matters into your own hands. I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously. I am trying to say that mildly and respectively. (There are many harsher ways to say it.)
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    >I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously. Interesting that the Secret Service ECTF took over the investigation into Swartz despite the fact his crime doesn't meet any of their stated criteria for involvement ("Significant economic or community impact", "Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations", or "Use of schemes involving new technology"). 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...
droithomme 14y ago
Welcome to Hacker News, SocioTech. I see you joined when the Swartz case news broke and all of your posts so far have been to defend the actions of the prosecution while demonizing Swartz and his advocates. That's fine, but why not take a look at the front page of Hacker News? As a tech guy and hacker, I'm sure there are lots of other topics that you as a new member would enjoy discussing and not just this single topic.
- lancewiggs 14y ago
  Yes - it has me wondering who SocioTech is, who he or she works for and what their role is there. Arguably the behavior reflects someone who is PR, political party or DA office, which in itself would be fairly big news.
  - ewillbefull 14y ago
    I think you're wasting time trying to discredit someone based on who they are.
  - sociotech 14y ago
    Reading about this case, I've seen lots of people called "shills" for the US Atty's office or the DOJ. You probably won't (and maybe shouldn't) take my word for it, but that's just not how these organizations work. It isn't even close. People in small communities often overimagine their own importance. That's not an insult, just a psychological truth. The DOJ doesn't care what people here write, and if you talked to people there, from political appointees down to staffers, most of them would fall somewhere between (a) pleasure that the democratic process is proceeding through random or organized discussion online and (b) snide dismissal of hackers they don't understand. They don't hire PR people to infiltrate discussion boards on general issues. (Of course, the FBI does hire people to infiltrate criminal communities.) Think of any cases of astroturfing that have come to light. It happens by hotels that want to post undeserved reviews on TripAdvisor, startups (and even charities, as Aaron once pointed out) that want to get attention, etc., etc. The DOJ and US Attys aren't in the astroturfing business. Another thing that should give people some perspective: It's laughable for people to have suggested, as I think a dozen did, that the new limit for White House petitions (100,000 instead of 25,000) had anything remotely to do this this case. Most people in the administration haven't heard of it and never will. There's a lot going on in the world. ;)
waterlesscloud 14y ago
"There's other manipulative PR worth identifying." Yes, like the press release Ortiz issued stating that Aaron faced up to 35 years in prison. Again, that number was not pulled out of thin air- it came directly from her office in an official press release. This never was a purely legal case at any time. It has always, at all times, also been a case the prosecution intentionally made into a media case.
hippee-lee 14y ago
Why was jail time and a felony ever sought for in this case? Why not 2-5 years community service focused on computer needs in the community? He stays out of jail, doesn't get a felony and the community or government gets some much needed computer help <edit> while he pays his debt to society.</edit> It's not that I oppose the fact that DA was prosecuting, it's how they were doing it. I see this as abuse of power by not showing restraint - but that's my opinion that a felony and jail time were excessive for the crime committed and the DA should have shown more restraint in how they plea barganed.
ewillbefull 14y ago
Mirroring the arguments about MAC spoofing in another thread, I have a question. If I got banned from an IRC server, switched my proxy settings and came back on to spam a channel with "I Dunno LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯" Can I be prosecuted and sent to prison for it? After all, I'm "evading access restrictions" and every other ridiculous vague threshold for illegal activity Aaron was charged with. The programmer/lurker in me would react by banning open proxies (DNSBL?) and requiring registration. Which is what we've been doing for decades. Would the federal prosecutor in you hunt down this potentially 10 year old kid and charge them with computer fraud to set an example? I think the sane reaction to a security issue is to fix the issue. Especially in the cyberlibterarian utopia I wish the Internet was. If it was exploited with enough maliciousness, I can look the other way while the hacker is sentenced for it. But for something this stupid? An open wifi network? An open closet? Aaron broke through no walls but made-up protocol restrictions. Where is the line drawn?
- sociotech 14y ago
  "Can I be prosecuted and sent to prison for it?" Probably not, but even if so, this is where prosecutorial discretion comes in. This is what people aren't understanding. If you avoid a channel ban, or sign up as "Mickey Mouse" to get free WiFi, nobody's going to prosecute you. If they did, you "stole" $30 worth of stuff and the penalty would be tiny. I'm not criticizing Aaron, but what he did was to intend to compromise a valuable database. If the gov't could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to make that valuable database public, that is a serious harm at issue. You might (and I might) not agree that the harm is important, but that's what many parties (journals, authors, JSTOR, universities who pay JSTOR) have relied on. Do we think one person should change the rules just because the can? Also, I didn't think even libertarian extremists would think that just because you installed windows rather than armed steel plating around your house, nobody could be blamed for breaking in. And I hate to say it, but the security - the combination of personnel and online monitoring - WORKED in this case. They outsmarted Aaron, as is clear when you read the docket. They engaged in a ruse to trap him and it worked.
- danielweber 14y ago
  If an IRC channel, or HackerNews, kicks me off, and while I know that they don't want me back I reconnect, that's almost assuredly illegal. It won't hit CFAA standards until damages exceed $5,000, though. The IRC channel, or HackerNews, probably doesn't have $5,000 worth of stuff to damage, unless I really harass them for months. JSTOR and MIT, whether you like them or not, did have something that valuable. The physical analog is entering a store that you have been forbidden to enter. That's misdemeanor trespass and probably only a small fine for the first time you do it. However, if you harm people or take/harm property while trespassing, you can quickly find yourself in the neighborhood of felony trespassing.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>The statement makes clear The statement doesn't actually provide any new information. All it says is that they decline to resign or admit wrongdoing. That much was expected and nothing else is anything we didn't already know. >If we're going to be rational, that shouldn't change when a defendant commits suicide while the case is pending. You're assuming that we were being rational before and now are being irrational rather than the other way around. It was previously irrational for us not to do something about this. (I don't mean these prosecutors specifically, but the system that allows this sort of thing to be "normal" is hugely problematic.) As for "manipulative PR," I'm not sure how much we should care about being "manipulated" to try and fix something which is legitimately in our own self interest to fix anyway.

edsu 14y ago

Who was the victim?

tptacek 14y ago
MIT, JSTOR, and publishers with JSTOR contracts. Not liking the victim doesn't make them not a victim. I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment, for what it's worth.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  Then justify the distinction of Trespass: up to 30 days in jail and/or 100$ fine !!!COMPUTER!!! trespass: Years and years in jail, hundreds of thousands of dollars fine, Federal felony. Yeah. SOUNDS LEGIT.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Your comment has nothing to do with mine.
- edsu 14y ago
  JSTOR settled, and so were no longer a victim. http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz just sayin'.
- gruseom 14y ago
  > I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment, for what it's worth. I'd be interested to hear why, if you haven't burned out on the subject... which presumably you haven't, since you just commented on it.
sociotech 14y ago
I agree that that's the right question. The intended "victims" were journals and JSTOR. I'm glad JSTOR didn't lean heavily on the prosecution, but they're not the only party who has a stake in this, and it's routine for government not to be simply a "victim's rights" organization that lets private people tell them what to do. Many small journals depend on subscription fees from services like JSTOR. But look, I'm not saying the law is perfect. There are whole encyclopedias written on legal theory about people's responsibilities to follow arguable but imperfect laws, and that is a big debate. The essence of the case here is that a "long ranger" activist who acts to publicize a massive database does threaten a significant financial disruption to many parties, and that is "harm" even under JS Mill's "harm principle." It's not like possessing drugs (which of course people go to harder jails for 20 years for possessing). If I am recalling correctly, a key point in the government's case was that Aaron was going to distribute the documents to the world had he succeeded. If so, they would have had to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If Aaron had a good case that he was just downloading the documents for his own personally curiosity, he would probably have won, and it would be easier to say the prosecution was overblown. But all that seems to have happened here is that the government offered 6 low-security months to someone who the government believed it could prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, was intending to undermine the revenue model of a significant part of the world's academic infrastructure. That doesn't mean that revenue model is praiseworthy, but the law doesn't let you take matters into your own hands. I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously. I am trying to say that mildly and respectively. (There are many harsher ways to say it.)
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously. Interesting that the Secret Service ECTF took over the investigation into Swartz despite the fact his crime doesn't meet any of their stated criteria for involvement ("Significant economic or community impact", "Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations", or "Use of schemes involving new technology"). 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...

droithomme 14y ago

Welcome to Hacker News, SocioTech. I see you joined when the Swartz case news broke and all of your posts so far have been to defend the actions of the prosecution while demonizing Swartz and his advocates. That's fine, but why not take a look at the front page of Hacker News? As a tech guy and hacker, I'm sure there are lots of other topics that you as a new member would enjoy discussing and not just this single topic.

lancewiggs 14y ago
Yes - it has me wondering who SocioTech is, who he or she works for and what their role is there. Arguably the behavior reflects someone who is PR, political party or DA office, which in itself would be fairly big news.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  I think you're wasting time trying to discredit someone based on who they are.
- sociotech 14y ago
  Reading about this case, I've seen lots of people called "shills" for the US Atty's office or the DOJ. You probably won't (and maybe shouldn't) take my word for it, but that's just not how these organizations work. It isn't even close. People in small communities often overimagine their own importance. That's not an insult, just a psychological truth. The DOJ doesn't care what people here write, and if you talked to people there, from political appointees down to staffers, most of them would fall somewhere between (a) pleasure that the democratic process is proceeding through random or organized discussion online and (b) snide dismissal of hackers they don't understand. They don't hire PR people to infiltrate discussion boards on general issues. (Of course, the FBI does hire people to infiltrate criminal communities.) Think of any cases of astroturfing that have come to light. It happens by hotels that want to post undeserved reviews on TripAdvisor, startups (and even charities, as Aaron once pointed out) that want to get attention, etc., etc. The DOJ and US Attys aren't in the astroturfing business. Another thing that should give people some perspective: It's laughable for people to have suggested, as I think a dozen did, that the new limit for White House petitions (100,000 instead of 25,000) had anything remotely to do this this case. Most people in the administration haven't heard of it and never will. There's a lot going on in the world. ;)

waterlesscloud 14y ago

"There's other manipulative PR worth identifying." Yes, like the press release Ortiz issued stating that Aaron faced up to 35 years in prison. Again, that number was not pulled out of thin air- it came directly from her office in an official press release. This never was a purely legal case at any time. It has always, at all times, also been a case the prosecution intentionally made into a media case.

hippee-lee 14y ago

Why was jail time and a felony ever sought for in this case? Why not 2-5 years community service focused on computer needs in the community? He stays out of jail, doesn't get a felony and the community or government gets some much needed computer help <edit> while he pays his debt to society.</edit> It's not that I oppose the fact that DA was prosecuting, it's how they were doing it. I see this as abuse of power by not showing restraint - but that's my opinion that a felony and jail time were excessive for the crime committed and the DA should have shown more restraint in how they plea barganed.

ewillbefull 14y ago

Mirroring the arguments about MAC spoofing in another thread, I have a question. If I got banned from an IRC server, switched my proxy settings and came back on to spam a channel with "I Dunno LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯" Can I be prosecuted and sent to prison for it? After all, I'm "evading access restrictions" and every other ridiculous vague threshold for illegal activity Aaron was charged with. The programmer/lurker in me would react by banning open proxies (DNSBL?) and requiring registration. Which is what we've been doing for decades. Would the federal prosecutor in you hunt down this potentially 10 year old kid and charge them with computer fraud to set an example? I think the sane reaction to a security issue is to fix the issue. Especially in the cyberlibterarian utopia I wish the Internet was. If it was exploited with enough maliciousness, I can look the other way while the hacker is sentenced for it. But for something this stupid? An open wifi network? An open closet? Aaron broke through no walls but made-up protocol restrictions. Where is the line drawn?

sociotech 14y ago
"Can I be prosecuted and sent to prison for it?" Probably not, but even if so, this is where prosecutorial discretion comes in. This is what people aren't understanding. If you avoid a channel ban, or sign up as "Mickey Mouse" to get free WiFi, nobody's going to prosecute you. If they did, you "stole" $30 worth of stuff and the penalty would be tiny. I'm not criticizing Aaron, but what he did was to intend to compromise a valuable database. If the gov't could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to make that valuable database public, that is a serious harm at issue. You might (and I might) not agree that the harm is important, but that's what many parties (journals, authors, JSTOR, universities who pay JSTOR) have relied on. Do we think one person should change the rules just because the can? Also, I didn't think even libertarian extremists would think that just because you installed windows rather than armed steel plating around your house, nobody could be blamed for breaking in. And I hate to say it, but the security - the combination of personnel and online monitoring - WORKED in this case. They outsmarted Aaron, as is clear when you read the docket. They engaged in a ruse to trap him and it worked.
danielweber 14y ago
If an IRC channel, or HackerNews, kicks me off, and while I know that they don't want me back I reconnect, that's almost assuredly illegal. It won't hit CFAA standards until damages exceed $5,000, though. The IRC channel, or HackerNews, probably doesn't have $5,000 worth of stuff to damage, unless I really harass them for months. JSTOR and MIT, whether you like them or not, did have something that valuable. The physical analog is entering a store that you have been forbidden to enter. That's misdemeanor trespass and probably only a small fine for the first time you do it. However, if you harm people or take/harm property while trespassing, you can quickly find yourself in the neighborhood of felony trespassing.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>The statement makes clear The statement doesn't actually provide any new information. All it says is that they decline to resign or admit wrongdoing. That much was expected and nothing else is anything we didn't already know. >If we're going to be rational, that shouldn't change when a defendant commits suicide while the case is pending. You're assuming that we were being rational before and now are being irrational rather than the other way around. It was previously irrational for us not to do something about this. (I don't mean these prosecutors specifically, but the system that allows this sort of thing to be "normal" is hugely problematic.) As for "manipulative PR," I'm not sure how much we should care about being "manipulated" to try and fix something which is legitimately in our own self interest to fix anyway.