4 ms·

So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?

by Kliment 14y ago

RobertHoudin 14y ago
Could you provide a link to that please?
- Maxious 14y ago
  > ALLEGED HACKER CHARGED WITH STEALING OVER FOUR MILLION DOCUMENTS FROM MIT NETWORK July 19, 2011 > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... Maybe us common folk don't understand that when the Department of Justice says 35 years they don't mean 35 years? Do the defendants in these cases understand how many years they are actually being expected to serve?
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Do the defendants in these cases understand how many years they are actually being expected to serve? No. This is intentional.
  - anonymouz 14y ago
    It is obvious from this press release from the formulation "faces up to 35 years in prison", that they are simply quoting the maximum penality for the charges. The prosecutors press release says that they didn't intend to push for maximum penality. These two statement are perfectly compatible with each other.
    - joshz 14y ago
      After the fact you can try to make it sound however you like. But when your option is to get off the lawn or get a bullet in the head, it sounds entirely different. The release is loaded with statements making it sound like he "deserved it" and some empty "didn't intend to" is worthless.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      I think those two statements are in direct contradiction with each other, and Aaron's lawyer is on the record that they were putting up a > 10:1 ratio for a plea bargain. So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation out there to make this look like what it is: full-on damage control. The Aaron Swartz story is starting to get some serious play in mainstream media and that is something that worries people like Carmen Ortiz more than anything else.
      - anonymouz 14y ago
        Why would those be contradictory? If the prosecution charges a person with X, and the maximum penality for X is, say, 10 years then it seems perfectly reasonable to say that this person faces up to 10 years in prison. In court the prosecution may well argue for, say, a 5 year penality under the given circumstances, and ultimately it's up to the judge.
      - josephlord 14y ago
        The maximum was so high they didn't even need to go near it for the terrifying threats of the > 10:1 ratio. The talk is that the plea would have been 6 months and that at trial they would have asked for 6 years. 12:1 ratio and they can truthfully say that they weren't asking for the maximum. They can't truthfully say that they wouldn't seek the ridiculous though. Likewise she focused on the plea bargain offer of side of 6 months but not on the fact that this would have involved admitting guilt to 13 felonies. For someone with honour who really believed themselves not guilty (at least of serious crime) that could be as much of an issue as 6 months low security detention. For lawyers it seems to be a game and the sentence and number of convictions is the score; unfortunately the victims of the law take it more seriously. Always look at what isn't said not just what is said.
  - blablabla123 14y ago
    +1 for "us common folk"
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- droithomme 14y ago
  http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. We can compare this to United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz, who, facing the ruination of her career over her actions, says in this new announcement on Wednesday, "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law." This new statement does not align with the documented history of statements made by the DOJ as evidenced in the above link. Perhaps though she is trying to argue that she, as the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, is somehow not part of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts that issued the press release which says "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million". This would be a difficult argument to make given that the press release itself specifically names U.S. Attorney Ortiz as the person who made the press announcement.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- Kliment 14y ago
  Several others did already, but here is a mirror in case the DOJ decides to take it down http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz-Aaron-PR.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz...

So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?

by Kliment 14y ago

So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?

RobertHoudin 14y ago

Could you provide a link to that please?

Maxious 14y ago
> ALLEGED HACKER CHARGED WITH STEALING OVER FOUR MILLION DOCUMENTS FROM MIT NETWORK July 19, 2011 > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... Maybe us common folk don't understand that when the Department of Justice says 35 years they don't mean 35 years? Do the defendants in these cases understand how many years they are actually being expected to serve?
- rhizome 14y ago
  Do the defendants in these cases understand how many years they are actually being expected to serve? No. This is intentional.
- anonymouz 14y ago
  It is obvious from this press release from the formulation "faces up to 35 years in prison", that they are simply quoting the maximum penality for the charges. The prosecutors press release says that they didn't intend to push for maximum penality. These two statement are perfectly compatible with each other.
  - joshz 14y ago
    After the fact you can try to make it sound however you like. But when your option is to get off the lawn or get a bullet in the head, it sounds entirely different. The release is loaded with statements making it sound like he "deserved it" and some empty "didn't intend to" is worthless.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    I think those two statements are in direct contradiction with each other, and Aaron's lawyer is on the record that they were putting up a > 10:1 ratio for a plea bargain. So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation out there to make this look like what it is: full-on damage control. The Aaron Swartz story is starting to get some serious play in mainstream media and that is something that worries people like Carmen Ortiz more than anything else.
    - anonymouz 14y ago
      Why would those be contradictory? If the prosecution charges a person with X, and the maximum penality for X is, say, 10 years then it seems perfectly reasonable to say that this person faces up to 10 years in prison. In court the prosecution may well argue for, say, a 5 year penality under the given circumstances, and ultimately it's up to the judge.
    - josephlord 14y ago
      The maximum was so high they didn't even need to go near it for the terrifying threats of the > 10:1 ratio. The talk is that the plea would have been 6 months and that at trial they would have asked for 6 years. 12:1 ratio and they can truthfully say that they weren't asking for the maximum. They can't truthfully say that they wouldn't seek the ridiculous though. Likewise she focused on the plea bargain offer of side of 6 months but not on the fact that this would have involved admitting guilt to 13 felonies. For someone with honour who really believed themselves not guilty (at least of serious crime) that could be as much of an issue as 6 months low security detention. For lawyers it seems to be a game and the sentence and number of convictions is the score; unfortunately the victims of the law take it more seriously. Always look at what isn't said not just what is said.
- blablabla123 14y ago
  +1 for "us common folk"
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
droithomme 14y ago
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. We can compare this to United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz, who, facing the ruination of her career over her actions, says in this new announcement on Wednesday, "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law." This new statement does not align with the documented history of statements made by the DOJ as evidenced in the above link. Perhaps though she is trying to argue that she, as the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, is somehow not part of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts that issued the press release which says "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million". This would be a difficult argument to make given that the press release itself specifically names U.S. Attorney Ortiz as the person who made the press announcement.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Kliment 14y ago
Several others did already, but here is a mirror in case the DOJ decides to take it down http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz-Aaron-PR.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz...