5 ms·

How did it go from state/civil to a federal case?

Steko 14y ago
But the sweeping nature of federal computer crime laws allowed Ortiz and Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, who wanted a high-profile computer crime conviction, to pursue felony charges. Heymann threatened the free-culture activist with over 30 years in prison as recently as the week before he killed himself... The Boston U.S. Attorney's office was looking for "some juicy looking computer crime cases and Aaron's case, sadly for Aaron, fit the bill," Elliot Peters, Swartz's attorney at the Keker & Van Nest law firm, told the Huffington Post. Heymann, Peters says, thought the Swartz case "was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper."
- rosser 14y ago
  Heymann, Peters says, thought the Swartz case "was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper." The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again... EDIT: The notion I was trying to capture is perhaps better expressed by saying, "Be careful what you wish for." Heymann got all the things Peters accuses him of wanting, just not exactly in the form he was presumably hoping to receive them.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    Why do you take Peters' claims about Heymann's motives seriously?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      The shoe fits? It makes sense, and I have been given absolutely no reason to doubt it.
    - rosser 14y ago
      I think you might be reading more into my beliefs wrt Heymann than is warranted, given what I said. (N.b., "Peters accuses him of wanting"; "the form he was presumably hoping to receive them.") I don't pretend to have any direct knowledge of Steve Heymann. That said, based on what knowledge I do have of him, his being a notches-on-the-belt and consequences be damned type of Federal prosecutor fits the facts well enough — in fact, better-enough than all the other alternatives combined — to consider my opinion accurate enough for an internet forum.
  - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
    Unintended how? The prosecutor decided he wanted to ruin Aaron's life. He succeeded.
    - jmillikin 14y ago
      The prosecutor wanted another feather in his cap. I doubt he held animosity towards Aaron in particular, any more than a mugger would towards someone wearing an expensive watch.
    - daniel-cussen 14y ago
      His name ended up on the newspaper in a manner different than that he expected.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  The US attorneys office has a dude just sitting around in Boston PD waiting for fun cases to show up?
- _delirium 14y ago
  That seems correct, but points to two fairy different issues: the breadth of the CFAA in (likely) making this incident into a federal crime, and the prosecutors' choice to pursue it. The former is what I'd really like fixed. I don't at all disagree with putting pressure on Ortiz and Heymann for choosing to pursue the charges, especially with the apparent vigor with which they did so. But the fundamental problem is the law. Ortiz and Heymann, I think, exercised their judgment poorly, but by the letter of the law they were in the right, because the person they were pursuing probably was guilty of a federal felony, as Congress defined it. So that's the more fundamental problem. Put differently: if a prosecutor chooses not to pursue particularly stupid applications of a law, that's better than the opposite, so we should work to make sure our public prosecutors are as reasonable as possible. But that's a very weak kind of protection. Having very broad criminal laws where we rely on the wisdom of prosecutors not to charge the "bad" applications leaves defendants with basically no procedural protections, since not being charged when you violated the law as written isn't any kind of legal right.
  - berlinbrown 14y ago
    I agree that the prosecutor went too far. But there certainly seems to be a case if just a minor one. I hate to use the adage but if you don't want to deal with the prosecutors you shouldn't get caught. On the case, I know a lot of technical people are responding that this case overreach on the prosecutor's side. I wish people would look at this from both sides. How does she know that Aaron was truly innocent? I bet she had expert witnesses on her side saying that Aaron was doing something illegal and excessive. Everyone is saying that he had access to download those files. But the prosecutor is looking at all of his seemingly suspicious behavior. 4 million downloads through a custom script. He walked into the computer closet to hard-wire in. If you are looking at the Aaron case abstractly and comparing his behavior with other cases. I bet the prosecutor thought they had something with the case against Aaron. He certainly wasn't entirely innocent. He didn't download 4-5 documents through a browser like a typical user.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      One problem I have with the discussion around the Swartz case is the apparent assumption by prosecutors and/or the public that atypical equals wrong. It's a particularly offensive notion because I'd expect a huge chunk, maybe a majority, of geeks to be seen as highly atypical and maybe even suspicious by laypersons.
betterunix 14y ago
The CFAA covers cases where the alleged computer crime involves a computer system that is involved in interstate commerce or communication. So basically, any alleged computer crime involving a computer connected to the Internet could be prosecuted by the federal government.

Steko 14y ago

But the sweeping nature of federal computer crime laws allowed Ortiz and Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, who wanted a high-profile computer crime conviction, to pursue felony charges. Heymann threatened the free-culture activist with over 30 years in prison as recently as the week before he killed himself... The Boston U.S. Attorney's office was looking for "some juicy looking computer crime cases and Aaron's case, sadly for Aaron, fit the bill," Elliot Peters, Swartz's attorney at the Keker & Van Nest law firm, told the Huffington Post. Heymann, Peters says, thought the Swartz case "was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper."

rosser 14y ago
Heymann, Peters says, thought the Swartz case "was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper." The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again... EDIT: The notion I was trying to capture is perhaps better expressed by saying, "Be careful what you wish for." Heymann got all the things Peters accuses him of wanting, just not exactly in the form he was presumably hoping to receive them.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  Why do you take Peters' claims about Heymann's motives seriously?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    The shoe fits? It makes sense, and I have been given absolutely no reason to doubt it.
  - rosser 14y ago
    I think you might be reading more into my beliefs wrt Heymann than is warranted, given what I said. (N.b., "Peters accuses him of wanting"; "the form he was presumably hoping to receive them.") I don't pretend to have any direct knowledge of Steve Heymann. That said, based on what knowledge I do have of him, his being a notches-on-the-belt and consequences be damned type of Federal prosecutor fits the facts well enough — in fact, better-enough than all the other alternatives combined — to consider my opinion accurate enough for an internet forum.
- RyanMcGreal 14y ago
  Unintended how? The prosecutor decided he wanted to ruin Aaron's life. He succeeded.
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    The prosecutor wanted another feather in his cap. I doubt he held animosity towards Aaron in particular, any more than a mugger would towards someone wearing an expensive watch.
  - daniel-cussen 14y ago
    His name ended up on the newspaper in a manner different than that he expected.
tedunangst 14y ago
The US attorneys office has a dude just sitting around in Boston PD waiting for fun cases to show up?
_delirium 14y ago
That seems correct, but points to two fairy different issues: the breadth of the CFAA in (likely) making this incident into a federal crime, and the prosecutors' choice to pursue it. The former is what I'd really like fixed. I don't at all disagree with putting pressure on Ortiz and Heymann for choosing to pursue the charges, especially with the apparent vigor with which they did so. But the fundamental problem is the law. Ortiz and Heymann, I think, exercised their judgment poorly, but by the letter of the law they were in the right, because the person they were pursuing probably was guilty of a federal felony, as Congress defined it. So that's the more fundamental problem. Put differently: if a prosecutor chooses not to pursue particularly stupid applications of a law, that's better than the opposite, so we should work to make sure our public prosecutors are as reasonable as possible. But that's a very weak kind of protection. Having very broad criminal laws where we rely on the wisdom of prosecutors not to charge the "bad" applications leaves defendants with basically no procedural protections, since not being charged when you violated the law as written isn't any kind of legal right.
- berlinbrown 14y ago
  I agree that the prosecutor went too far. But there certainly seems to be a case if just a minor one. I hate to use the adage but if you don't want to deal with the prosecutors you shouldn't get caught. On the case, I know a lot of technical people are responding that this case overreach on the prosecutor's side. I wish people would look at this from both sides. How does she know that Aaron was truly innocent? I bet she had expert witnesses on her side saying that Aaron was doing something illegal and excessive. Everyone is saying that he had access to download those files. But the prosecutor is looking at all of his seemingly suspicious behavior. 4 million downloads through a custom script. He walked into the computer closet to hard-wire in. If you are looking at the Aaron case abstractly and comparing his behavior with other cases. I bet the prosecutor thought they had something with the case against Aaron. He certainly wasn't entirely innocent. He didn't download 4-5 documents through a browser like a typical user.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    One problem I have with the discussion around the Swartz case is the apparent assumption by prosecutors and/or the public that atypical equals wrong. It's a particularly offensive notion because I'd expect a huge chunk, maybe a majority, of geeks to be seen as highly atypical and maybe even suspicious by laypersons.

betterunix 14y ago

The CFAA covers cases where the alleged computer crime involves a computer system that is involved in interstate commerce or communication. So basically, any alleged computer crime involving a computer connected to the Internet could be prosecuted by the federal government.