15 ms·

I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no

by Vivtek 14y ago

I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that! Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out of control, when this is the way DoJ does everything it touches and everybody knows it.

malandrew 14y ago
This is probably the most worrying issue with this article. It places the blame on two individuals who are characterized as out of control instead of a system that is out of control. The entire system needs to be held accountable and corrected and those highlighted as having benefited their careers through this widespread misconduct should be individually held accountable just like individuals were held accountable at Nuremberg. Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann. They had the power and discretion to correct the course of the out of control prosecutorial train, but instead chose to proceed full steam ahead.
- thoughtcriminal 14y ago
  Mother Theresa once said that when she looked upon the many she could do nothing, but when she focused on the one, she could do something. The same applies here. Someone needs to be held accountable. Change needs to start somewhere.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Someone needs to be held accountable. Ortiz is someone. Therefore...
    - smsm42 14y ago
      Oritz is not just someone. Oritz is who had control over the matters and held the decision power in the matter. She's not a random bystander.
    - cwp 14y ago
      What, you have someone else in mind? Or maybe she's just an innocent victim here, a well-meaning prosecutor working for justice, who just had the bad luck to lay charges against a popular but suicidal trouble maker and is now being scapegoated?
    - mpyne 14y ago
      Accountable for what exactly?
  - jb17 14y ago
    I'm not sure Mother Theresa is a good example for anything, but regarding the general argument you are making here: There is a huge difference between helping one person (decreasing the general suffering by a tiny but attainable amount) and making one person an example (hoping this changes the status quo somehow).
    - erichocean 14y ago
      I don't think anyone wants to make Ortiz an "example". Ortiz literally did not do her job. She over-prosecuted a case, apparently for personal advancement and DoJ-vendetta seeking, that was worth no more than a misdemeanor at best. Sure, it's a problem that "the system" allowed her to do so. But it's also a problem that she abused the system, destroyed a life, shows no remorse, and will likely continue to abuse the system if not removed from office.
      - DanBC 14y ago
        The system didn't just allow her to do it, it encouraged her to do it. And not just her, but probably many others in positions like hers.
      - malandrew 14y ago
        Totally agree. At the very least, she should fired, but definitely not in the name of revenge and not to make an example, but because she didn't do her job. Making an example of someone implies over prosecuting someone in order to discourage others. In some industries, certain acts bar you from working in that industry again forever. Lawyers can be disbarred. Doctors and other licensed professionals can lose their license to practice. The same should happen to any and every prosecutor that abuses their power for personal gain. Removing people for violating the responsibilities entrusted to them isn't "making an example", but simply removing any and all that shouldn't be practicing in a certain professional area because they don't adhere to the ethical standards of their position. However, an investigation is merited to determine if Ortiz and Heynmann were willfully negligant in applying their tactics. The same way we hold other individuals accountable for harm caused by bullying, she may merit the same. My gut tells me that an investigation and possible trial would exonerate her of any criminal wrongdoing (unless some other over-zealous prosecutor treated her as she treated Aaron), but would leave her open to a civil lawsuit, which she probably deserves
  - aw3c2 14y ago
    Mother Theresa let people die slow, horrible and unnecessary deaths. You should never use that person as a good example for anything really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Huh... That seems to have been removed!
      - aw3c2 14y ago
        Link to a random version that has it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&oldid=533864712#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&... and then the 5th paragraph onwards.
    - pvaldes 14y ago
      > Mother Theresa let people die slow, horrible and unnecessary deaths Instead to, err... dispacht them quick and efficiently?
      - aw3c2 14y ago
        Instead of treating their illness and making them not die.
        pvaldes 14y ago
        Of course, well, but we are missing the point here. To care for all indian citizens and to treat its health problems (if possible) was not the duty of this woman. It is the duty of the indian government. The duty of the Republic of India and of all the hindi people. Yes, I agree that having a team of volunteers "cleaning the streets" and hiding ugly pictures is very "convenient" and is not solving the real problem here: that this man, woman or child will die in a street and the government will not cares about this, probably because this human is tagged as "low chast" and "less human than me". To charge a single NGO with the whole health system of more than a 1,2 millions of people seems not fair. Even if this NGO receives money for trying to help poor people. I don't want to speak for this NGO, but I think that the game here is probably more about educate the hindi people that this situation is not right, than to save today a relatively few lives just to see how they die tomorrow victims of a unfair structure that tags people as first class, second class,... disposable. And, yes, you need some money to maintain this structure. The Mother Teresa NGO don't need to open hospitals, the Red Cross do this, Medicus mundi do this. We should not blame a single woman for not doing the work of a system that rejects to treat and save a human people that can be saved. We should blame either the indian government, or if you prefer, the whole (lack of) humanity for this.
- asmithmd1 14y ago
  Ortiz specifically has brought other cases that have made me furious. Check out this one where she is trying to seize a family owned budget motel. There is no complaint whatsoever against the owner, but about once every other year the cops bust some low-level drug deal. The motel is paid-off and owned by the son of the founder and is worth 1.5 million, therefore she saw an easy civil forfeiture target. She is out of control and not helping the people of Massachusetts. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/12/29/mass_budget_motel_fights_forfeiture_by_feds http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011...
  - legutierr 14y ago
    This was written over a year ago. Do you know the resolution of this case?
    - clarky07 14y ago
      Hasn't been resolved yet. Trial was in November, no verdict yet - http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22253534/caswell-awaits-its-fate http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22253534/caswell...
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Careful here. Any time you read a story like "government attempts to liquidate real property to fund police department", your first thought should be "that's not the whole story", because (for the most part) that's not how the federal government operates. So, some issues with this story: * This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office). * The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse. Don't take my word for it; here's TripAdvisor ("ROOMS BY THE HOUR: Hookers, drug addicts, drug dealers, need I say more") complete with picture: http://tinyurl.com/ta-caswell http://tinyurl.com/ta-caswell and here's Yelp ("Please don't bring your kids here.") http://tinyurl.com/y-caswell http://tinyurl.com/y-caswell * The owners of the hotel were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken; the hotel had no security, and its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again. * The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms. * The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms. * Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel. * The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms. There are places like this all over America and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down (hey, by the way, still think there couldn't possibly be a difference between an apartment and a room up for temporary let on Airbnb?). If all we're saying is that civil asset forfeiture is the wrong means to shut them down, I'm with you. But this case does not make my blood boil the way it does for you.
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann. I agree. They should have everything possible bad happen to them. Both to ruin their lives -- which is what they deserve -- and to make them an example for others.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  Really not getting the impression that Ortiz was a good soul trappend in a bad system. To the contrary, she seems to be the embodiment of the bad system. To the good souls who are actually trapped alongside her, she's a prime example of the problem they're facing, in that monsters like her are what gets promoted, leaving people who are better than her no choices beyond going along quietly or exiting altogether. I mean, just consider her deputy. When people talk about the bad driving out the good, this is what they mean.
  - jessaustin 14y ago
    Keep in mind that all federal prosecutors are 100% committed to putting (especially poor and minority) citizens in prison for years for the victimless crimes of drug possession and distribution. This practice has destroyed hundreds of communities and millions of lives. There are no good apples in this barrel. Every federal prosecutor should get some portion of the punishments they're so eager to mete out.
    - drakeandrews 14y ago
      So I take it you have signed affidavits from every federal prosecutor to that effect? And proof that drug possession and distribution are always entirely victimless. The fact is that I generally support decriminalisation, and that I acknowledge the fact that prosecution tends to treat those of lesser socioeconomic standing (such as the poor and those belonging to minorities) badly. But blanket statements generally don't help. Especially those calling for the blanket punishment of a wide ranging group of people whom are most likely doing that which they feel is right (never attribute to malice what can adequately attributed to ignorance). Edit: Accidentally a word (The fact that -> The fact is that)
      - jessaustin 14y ago
        ...blanket statements generally don't help.
        drakeandrews 14y ago
Natsu 14y ago
> Little to no commercial value? Have you ever tried to sell a diamon, err, scholarly article?
- aheilbut 14y ago
  Rightly or wrongly, Elsevier makes a pretty decent business out of it.
- whyenot 14y ago
  Elsevier et al have done very well selling articles bundled as journal subscriptions. Claiming articles have no commercial value while at the same time railing against publishers is cognitive dissonance at its finest.
  - OmarIsmail 14y ago
    His point is that the scholarly articles (like diamonds) can be easily tracked, and therefore determined if illegally sold or not. Since legitimate buyers - University professors, etc - want to be sure they are on the up and up, the won't purchase illegally obtained goods. Therefore, there would have been no buyers for the articles "stolen".
    - Natsu 14y ago
      Exactly. I can't believe that Aaron would have been able to sell them, even if he had intended to. And I can't seriously believe that he ever intended to, or that the prosecutors could have truly believed that he intended to. Yes, they are doing that themselves. But hopefully not for much longer if the internet has anything to say about that. I applaud all of the scientists who are working hard to make their research more open.
    - MichaelSalib 14y ago
      That doesn't make sense. Imagine a world where Swartz managed to destroy JSTOR. A professor asks his grad students to read an article. They can either dig it out of the archival stacks and read it there or wait for interlibrary loan or...use a torrented copy or illegal DVD they bought on the street at their last academic conference. There is no way to track which one they did. No one will ever know. And no one will care: all the prof cares about is whether his students read the damn article; he doesn't care how they got it. He's completely focused on getting his research done, writing grant proposals, etc.
btipling 14y ago
I agree that the lionization of Aaron is maybe getting a little out of hand. He was an accomplished and notable young person, few would deny this, but let's keep it realistic.
- hyperbovine 14y ago
  The easiest way to be born a genius is to become rich or die.
- Natsu 14y ago
  Which statements, specifically, do you see as being unrealistic? Edit: I'd like to know what the downvoter is thinking, too, but I wonder if I'll get any answers.
  - fatbird 14y ago
    Greatest prodigy of his generation is one such example of hyperbole.
    - clicks 14y ago
      He authored the RSS spec at age 14. He may not be the greatest prodigy, but as far as I can tell he's one of the greater prodigies. I do not think it is a hyperbole at all to label him the 'greatest prodigy' of our generation. He made great contributions in the effort of making information free, with his work on the commons and all. That is a profoundly big endeavor that pushes humanity forword, do not be so quick to look past that.
      - fatbird 14y ago
        I think the broader point is that lionizing Swartz and demonizing Ortiz turns the whole episode into a morality play in which we want to see Ortiz lynched because Jesus was crucified. The issues raised are systemic issues and require systemic solutions, in the long term. Focusing on the individuals involved obscures that. If all that happens is that Ortiz is scapegoated by the DOJ, then we'll have failed to capitalize on the moment to enact real, useful change.
moxie 14y ago
I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day. So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable. But on another level, it's frustrating that it's impossible to put the system on trial. It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the hands of those who appointed her (and will appoint her successor) by making this out to be the fault of an individual. It makes it easier for them to act shocked, replace her, and be done with it.
- wavesounds 14y ago
  I think that making an example out of someone really can work to effect the actions of a larger group. Fight fire with fire.
- warmwaffles 14y ago
  > I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.
  - JasonFruit 14y ago
    I had to go make sure that it was you and not me: it was "demonization", not "demonetization".
    - warmwaffles 14y ago
      No I just copy pasted what he said, and it appears he corrected his mistake. So I'll do the same.
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends". I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.
rhizome 14y ago
As far as the prosecution goes, here's some interesting explorations: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-into-wikileaks/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-...
- krutulis 14y ago
  That is a fascinating account of some events related to the "investigation" of Aaron. I'm not sure whether they amount to attempted revenge and harassment or are the result of incompetence on the part of those leading the attack. Either way, the net effect appears to be an abuse of power that would have tormented anyone. Related: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/14/what-kind-of-fishing-trip-did-the-government-conduct-into-aaron-swartz-amazon-data/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/14/what-kind-of-fishing-tr... And: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-the-swartz-investigation/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-t...
temphn 14y ago
The press will never get everything 100% accurate, but let's look on the bright side. A week ago, many lawyers (example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052339 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052339) were assuring us that seeing any accountability for Ortiz and Heymann would be a "fantasy", that this wasn't the way things worked, that hackers had to wise up and embrace their impotence. That wasn't the way things played out. With this (as with the movement against SOPA/PIPA), we can see an embryonic new power arising in the Internet, a power which can drive mainstream media coverage which in turn drives political decision-making. This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues. I've seen more prevaricating (and sometimes outright lying) this week from the hackers than from the lawyers so I, for one, hope that the lynch mob ceases immediately.
  - jmesserly 14y ago
    Oh please. Wanting someone held accountable for their negligence and overreach is not a "lynch mob".
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      We live in a world were comparing government action to government action seen in 1930/1940s Europe is considered "losing the conversation" and is just met with screams of "but Godwin's law!", but where it seems to be perfectly acceptable to compare the public calling for the firing of a public official to a formerly widespread practice of brutally murdering members of underprivileged minorities. When the comparison is made against governments, that is bad, but it is okay to make such comparisons against the people. Sickening. The cause of this discrepancy is an unhealthy worship of the law and government that many people seem to have acquired.
betterunix 14y ago
"Little to no commercial value?" This is one thing is was absolutely correct: those articles had almost no chance of being sold at $20 a piece. In fact, the commercial value has little to do with the articles themselves, since JSTOR and journal publishers make the bulk of their money from subscriptions, which libraries will pay for regardless of the availability of articles by other means, and by offering search services, which Aaron was not preparing to offer. The claim that Aaron's plan would have caused any measurable harm to JSTOR or any of the publishers it contracts is dubious. It is also worth noting that the government is not supposed to be in the business of indiscriminately protecting commercial interests. Even if we assume that sharing these articles via BitTorrent would have damaged JSTOR's business, so what? The purpose of academic publishers in our society is to make knowledge available on a widespread basis, and if BitTorrent does a better job we should have switched to BitTorrent long ago. Academic publishers are not like the RIAA or MPAA; where the music and movie businesses can claim that their profits pay for the entertainment they release, journal publishers cannot make such a claim, because the research they publish is paid for by someone else, the peer review process is voluntary, and many journals even have volunteer editors. I agree that the characterization of Aaron's behavior as a "college prank" is unrealistic; a better characterization would have been "heroic."
d0mine 14y ago
You're misrepresenting the article. It explicitly states: > The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice > system also know that it was a common one. The tragedy highlighted the common issue.

by Vivtek 14y ago

malandrew 14y ago

This is probably the most worrying issue with this article. It places the blame on two individuals who are characterized as out of control instead of a system that is out of control. The entire system needs to be held accountable and corrected and those highlighted as having benefited their careers through this widespread misconduct should be individually held accountable just like individuals were held accountable at Nuremberg. Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann. They had the power and discretion to correct the course of the out of control prosecutorial train, but instead chose to proceed full steam ahead.

thoughtcriminal 14y ago
Mother Theresa once said that when she looked upon the many she could do nothing, but when she focused on the one, she could do something. The same applies here. Someone needs to be held accountable. Change needs to start somewhere.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Someone needs to be held accountable. Ortiz is someone. Therefore...
  - smsm42 14y ago
    Oritz is not just someone. Oritz is who had control over the matters and held the decision power in the matter. She's not a random bystander.
  - cwp 14y ago
    What, you have someone else in mind? Or maybe she's just an innocent victim here, a well-meaning prosecutor working for justice, who just had the bad luck to lay charges against a popular but suicidal trouble maker and is now being scapegoated?
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Accountable for what exactly?
- jb17 14y ago
  I'm not sure Mother Theresa is a good example for anything, but regarding the general argument you are making here: There is a huge difference between helping one person (decreasing the general suffering by a tiny but attainable amount) and making one person an example (hoping this changes the status quo somehow).
  - erichocean 14y ago
    I don't think anyone wants to make Ortiz an "example". Ortiz literally did not do her job. She over-prosecuted a case, apparently for personal advancement and DoJ-vendetta seeking, that was worth no more than a misdemeanor at best. Sure, it's a problem that "the system" allowed her to do so. But it's also a problem that she abused the system, destroyed a life, shows no remorse, and will likely continue to abuse the system if not removed from office.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      The system didn't just allow her to do it, it encouraged her to do it. And not just her, but probably many others in positions like hers.
    - malandrew 14y ago
      Totally agree. At the very least, she should fired, but definitely not in the name of revenge and not to make an example, but because she didn't do her job. Making an example of someone implies over prosecuting someone in order to discourage others. In some industries, certain acts bar you from working in that industry again forever. Lawyers can be disbarred. Doctors and other licensed professionals can lose their license to practice. The same should happen to any and every prosecutor that abuses their power for personal gain. Removing people for violating the responsibilities entrusted to them isn't "making an example", but simply removing any and all that shouldn't be practicing in a certain professional area because they don't adhere to the ethical standards of their position. However, an investigation is merited to determine if Ortiz and Heynmann were willfully negligant in applying their tactics. The same way we hold other individuals accountable for harm caused by bullying, she may merit the same. My gut tells me that an investigation and possible trial would exonerate her of any criminal wrongdoing (unless some other over-zealous prosecutor treated her as she treated Aaron), but would leave her open to a civil lawsuit, which she probably deserves
- aw3c2 14y ago
  Mother Theresa let people die slow, horrible and unnecessary deaths. You should never use that person as a good example for anything really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Huh... That seems to have been removed!
    - aw3c2 14y ago
      Link to a random version that has it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&oldid=533864712#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&... and then the 5th paragraph onwards.
  - pvaldes 14y ago
    > Mother Theresa let people die slow, horrible and unnecessary deaths Instead to, err... dispacht them quick and efficiently?
    - aw3c2 14y ago
      Instead of treating their illness and making them not die.
      - pvaldes 14y ago
        Of course, well, but we are missing the point here. To care for all indian citizens and to treat its health problems (if possible) was not the duty of this woman. It is the duty of the indian government. The duty of the Republic of India and of all the hindi people. Yes, I agree that having a team of volunteers "cleaning the streets" and hiding ugly pictures is very "convenient" and is not solving the real problem here: that this man, woman or child will die in a street and the government will not cares about this, probably because this human is tagged as "low chast" and "less human than me". To charge a single NGO with the whole health system of more than a 1,2 millions of people seems not fair. Even if this NGO receives money for trying to help poor people. I don't want to speak for this NGO, but I think that the game here is probably more about educate the hindi people that this situation is not right, than to save today a relatively few lives just to see how they die tomorrow victims of a unfair structure that tags people as first class, second class,... disposable. And, yes, you need some money to maintain this structure. The Mother Teresa NGO don't need to open hospitals, the Red Cross do this, Medicus mundi do this. We should not blame a single woman for not doing the work of a system that rejects to treat and save a human people that can be saved. We should blame either the indian government, or if you prefer, the whole (lack of) humanity for this.
asmithmd1 14y ago
Ortiz specifically has brought other cases that have made me furious. Check out this one where she is trying to seize a family owned budget motel. There is no complaint whatsoever against the owner, but about once every other year the cops bust some low-level drug deal. The motel is paid-off and owned by the son of the founder and is worth 1.5 million, therefore she saw an easy civil forfeiture target. She is out of control and not helping the people of Massachusetts. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/12/29/mass_budget_motel_fights_forfeiture_by_feds http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011...
- legutierr 14y ago
  This was written over a year ago. Do you know the resolution of this case?
  - clarky07 14y ago
    Hasn't been resolved yet. Trial was in November, no verdict yet - http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22253534/caswell-awaits-its-fate http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22253534/caswell...
- tptacek 14y ago
  Careful here. Any time you read a story like "government attempts to liquidate real property to fund police department", your first thought should be "that's not the whole story", because (for the most part) that's not how the federal government operates. So, some issues with this story: * This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office). * The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse. Don't take my word for it; here's TripAdvisor ("ROOMS BY THE HOUR: Hookers, drug addicts, drug dealers, need I say more") complete with picture: http://tinyurl.com/ta-caswell http://tinyurl.com/ta-caswell and here's Yelp ("Please don't bring your kids here.") http://tinyurl.com/y-caswell http://tinyurl.com/y-caswell * The owners of the hotel were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken; the hotel had no security, and its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again. * The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms. * The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms. * Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel. * The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms. There are places like this all over America and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down (hey, by the way, still think there couldn't possibly be a difference between an apartment and a room up for temporary let on Airbnb?). If all we're saying is that civil asset forfeiture is the wrong means to shut them down, I'm with you. But this case does not make my blood boil the way it does for you.
cabalamat 14y ago
> Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann. I agree. They should have everything possible bad happen to them. Both to ruin their lives -- which is what they deserve -- and to make them an example for others.
alexqgb 14y ago
Really not getting the impression that Ortiz was a good soul trappend in a bad system. To the contrary, she seems to be the embodiment of the bad system. To the good souls who are actually trapped alongside her, she's a prime example of the problem they're facing, in that monsters like her are what gets promoted, leaving people who are better than her no choices beyond going along quietly or exiting altogether. I mean, just consider her deputy. When people talk about the bad driving out the good, this is what they mean.
- jessaustin 14y ago
  Keep in mind that all federal prosecutors are 100% committed to putting (especially poor and minority) citizens in prison for years for the victimless crimes of drug possession and distribution. This practice has destroyed hundreds of communities and millions of lives. There are no good apples in this barrel. Every federal prosecutor should get some portion of the punishments they're so eager to mete out.
  - drakeandrews 14y ago
    So I take it you have signed affidavits from every federal prosecutor to that effect? And proof that drug possession and distribution are always entirely victimless. The fact is that I generally support decriminalisation, and that I acknowledge the fact that prosecution tends to treat those of lesser socioeconomic standing (such as the poor and those belonging to minorities) badly. But blanket statements generally don't help. Especially those calling for the blanket punishment of a wide ranging group of people whom are most likely doing that which they feel is right (never attribute to malice what can adequately attributed to ignorance). Edit: Accidentally a word (The fact that -> The fact is that)
    - jessaustin 14y ago
      ...blanket statements generally don't help.
      - drakeandrews 14y ago

Natsu 14y ago

> Little to no commercial value? Have you ever tried to sell a diamon, err, scholarly article?

aheilbut 14y ago
Rightly or wrongly, Elsevier makes a pretty decent business out of it.
whyenot 14y ago
Elsevier et al have done very well selling articles bundled as journal subscriptions. Claiming articles have no commercial value while at the same time railing against publishers is cognitive dissonance at its finest.
- OmarIsmail 14y ago
  His point is that the scholarly articles (like diamonds) can be easily tracked, and therefore determined if illegally sold or not. Since legitimate buyers - University professors, etc - want to be sure they are on the up and up, the won't purchase illegally obtained goods. Therefore, there would have been no buyers for the articles "stolen".
  - Natsu 14y ago
    Exactly. I can't believe that Aaron would have been able to sell them, even if he had intended to. And I can't seriously believe that he ever intended to, or that the prosecutors could have truly believed that he intended to. Yes, they are doing that themselves. But hopefully not for much longer if the internet has anything to say about that. I applaud all of the scientists who are working hard to make their research more open.
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    That doesn't make sense. Imagine a world where Swartz managed to destroy JSTOR. A professor asks his grad students to read an article. They can either dig it out of the archival stacks and read it there or wait for interlibrary loan or...use a torrented copy or illegal DVD they bought on the street at their last academic conference. There is no way to track which one they did. No one will ever know. And no one will care: all the prof cares about is whether his students read the damn article; he doesn't care how they got it. He's completely focused on getting his research done, writing grant proposals, etc.

btipling 14y ago

I agree that the lionization of Aaron is maybe getting a little out of hand. He was an accomplished and notable young person, few would deny this, but let's keep it realistic.

hyperbovine 14y ago
The easiest way to be born a genius is to become rich or die.
Natsu 14y ago
Which statements, specifically, do you see as being unrealistic? Edit: I'd like to know what the downvoter is thinking, too, but I wonder if I'll get any answers.
- fatbird 14y ago
  Greatest prodigy of his generation is one such example of hyperbole.
  - clicks 14y ago
    He authored the RSS spec at age 14. He may not be the greatest prodigy, but as far as I can tell he's one of the greater prodigies. I do not think it is a hyperbole at all to label him the 'greatest prodigy' of our generation. He made great contributions in the effort of making information free, with his work on the commons and all. That is a profoundly big endeavor that pushes humanity forword, do not be so quick to look past that.
    - fatbird 14y ago
      I think the broader point is that lionizing Swartz and demonizing Ortiz turns the whole episode into a morality play in which we want to see Ortiz lynched because Jesus was crucified. The issues raised are systemic issues and require systemic solutions, in the long term. Focusing on the individuals involved obscures that. If all that happens is that Ortiz is scapegoated by the DOJ, then we'll have failed to capitalize on the moment to enact real, useful change.

moxie 14y ago

I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day. So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable. But on another level, it's frustrating that it's impossible to put the system on trial. It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the hands of those who appointed her (and will appoint her successor) by making this out to be the fault of an individual. It makes it easier for them to act shocked, replace her, and be done with it.

wavesounds 14y ago
I think that making an example out of someone really can work to effect the actions of a larger group. Fight fire with fire.
warmwaffles 14y ago
> I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.
- JasonFruit 14y ago
  I had to go make sure that it was you and not me: it was "demonization", not "demonetization".
  - warmwaffles 14y ago
    No I just copy pasted what he said, and it appears he corrected his mistake. So I'll do the same.
MichaelSalib 14y ago
I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends". I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.

rhizome 14y ago

As far as the prosecution goes, here's some interesting explorations: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-into-wikileaks/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-...

krutulis 14y ago
That is a fascinating account of some events related to the "investigation" of Aaron. I'm not sure whether they amount to attempted revenge and harassment or are the result of incompetence on the part of those leading the attack. Either way, the net effect appears to be an abuse of power that would have tormented anyone. Related: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/14/what-kind-of-fishing-trip-did-the-government-conduct-into-aaron-swartz-amazon-data/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/14/what-kind-of-fishing-tr... And: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-the-swartz-investigation/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-t...

temphn 14y ago

The press will never get everything 100% accurate, but let's look on the bright side. A week ago, many lawyers (example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052339 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052339) were assuring us that seeing any accountability for Ortiz and Heymann would be a "fantasy", that this wasn't the way things worked, that hackers had to wise up and embrace their impotence. That wasn't the way things played out. With this (as with the movement against SOPA/PIPA), we can see an embryonic new power arising in the Internet, a power which can drive mainstream media coverage which in turn drives political decision-making. This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues.

mpyne 14y ago
> This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues. I've seen more prevaricating (and sometimes outright lying) this week from the hackers than from the lawyers so I, for one, hope that the lynch mob ceases immediately.
- jmesserly 14y ago
  Oh please. Wanting someone held accountable for their negligence and overreach is not a "lynch mob".
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    We live in a world were comparing government action to government action seen in 1930/1940s Europe is considered "losing the conversation" and is just met with screams of "but Godwin's law!", but where it seems to be perfectly acceptable to compare the public calling for the firing of a public official to a formerly widespread practice of brutally murdering members of underprivileged minorities. When the comparison is made against governments, that is bad, but it is okay to make such comparisons against the people. Sickening. The cause of this discrepancy is an unhealthy worship of the law and government that many people seem to have acquired.

betterunix 14y ago

"Little to no commercial value?" This is one thing is was absolutely correct: those articles had almost no chance of being sold at $20 a piece. In fact, the commercial value has little to do with the articles themselves, since JSTOR and journal publishers make the bulk of their money from subscriptions, which libraries will pay for regardless of the availability of articles by other means, and by offering search services, which Aaron was not preparing to offer. The claim that Aaron's plan would have caused any measurable harm to JSTOR or any of the publishers it contracts is dubious. It is also worth noting that the government is not supposed to be in the business of indiscriminately protecting commercial interests. Even if we assume that sharing these articles via BitTorrent would have damaged JSTOR's business, so what? The purpose of academic publishers in our society is to make knowledge available on a widespread basis, and if BitTorrent does a better job we should have switched to BitTorrent long ago. Academic publishers are not like the RIAA or MPAA; where the music and movie businesses can claim that their profits pay for the entertainment they release, journal publishers cannot make such a claim, because the research they publish is paid for by someone else, the peer review process is voluntary, and many journals even have volunteer editors. I agree that the characterization of Aaron's behavior as a "college prank" is unrealistic; a better characterization would have been "heroic."

d0mine 14y ago

You're misrepresenting the article. It explicitly states: > The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice > system also know that it was a common one. The tragedy highlighted the common issue.