4 ms·
> "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." http://watchdogblog.
by Maxious 14y ago
> "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."
http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/read-the-full-court-file-of-the-governments-prosecution-of-open-government-hacktivist-aaron-swartz.html/ http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/read-the-full-cou... page 344
> Nothing in the wire fraud statute or the cases construing it provides constitutionally adequate notice that manipulating IP addresses, spoofing MAC addresses, and gaining access to a free electronic communications network (MIT's) for the purpose of accessing another website to download journal articles which are free to those with access to the website, and for which access MIT had already paid, constitutes a federal wire fraud felony carrying a potential penalty of 30 years.
> Defendant's research has located no reported wire fraud case which is even remotely comparable to this one.
The defence lawyers may have been talking in hyperbole but they had some reason to believe that it was potentially 30 years. Perhaps because they had heard nothing to contradict that impression.
- kijin 14y agoOn the first page, it says: Aaron Swartz TERMINATED: 01/14/2013 It's probably just legalese that refers to the case being closed, but the placement of the all-caps word right under Aaron's name sent a chill down my spine. Sorry for the off-topic post.
- jacquesm 14y agoThat is one very unfortunate choice of words and I have goose flesh just reading that line. Terminated indeed.
- FireBeyond 14y ago"probably"? Yes, it is. Heaven forbid when someone 'kill's the Apache instance on aaronsw.com... EDIT: Sorry, this might seem a bit harsh/shallow, but it was my attempt at pointing out that there is a reaction here that is, in parts, bordering on the hysterical - to use the parent example, "I'm sure the use of 'terminated' is probably just legal terminology"... as opposed to what, "Yeah, we got him, target terminated"?
- lclarkmichalek 14y agoThe statement says as much: "Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge". However, it's a little bit of a stretch to say that the prosecutors were seeking 30 years from the statement (there may be other statements that give information to the contrary).
- mrgoldenbrown 14y agoThe prosecutors piled charge upon charge. If they didn't want 30 years, why pile on so much? If they wanted 6 months, they could have stuck with a charge whose sentencing wasn't so extreme.
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoThey pile on charges so that they have options. They will throw every possible thing they can think of at you and all they need is a couple things to stick and they have their win. They can drop some during negotiations to appear to be working with you. If they come at you with one single charge, you have a greater chance of finding some technicality that gets you out of it. Defending yourself against one accusation is far easier than defending against 10.
- mpyne 14y agoDouble jeopardy (the U.S. Constitutional guarantee against being charged with the same crime twice) basically requires that the prosecutors bring every viable charge that they feel they have the evidence to support for a given single crime. The flip side to this is that sentences are normally given concurrently, or simply based on the most serious charge actually found guilty of during the trial.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]