4 ms·

Letter to Carmen Ortiz about Aaron Swartz

38 points by payne92 14y ago

kdude63 14y ago
Everyone regards Carmen Ortiz as this heartless evil witch, and this post is more or less defending her. I was expecting more of a response from the community over the course of almost an hour.
- mpyne 14y ago
  See, that's why I don't like these lynch mobs that form. He wasn't "defending her" as much as empathizing with her role and duties and using grown-up language to debate grown-up topics like a bunch of goddamn grown-ups. If treating her like an adult instead of calling for her immediate resignation is defending her then I'm not sure what to say... how can you have sane debates with ideologues? FWIW I have quibbles with the letter (e.g. it's entirely within the purview of USSS to investigate "computer crimes" due to historical circumstances) but those are just quibbles, minor areas of disagreements where sane people simply might not agree. I agree that I expect approximately zero to come of his letter, as least as far as concrete action is concerned. But, his letter is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to appeal to those who really can make a big difference in how computer crimes are treated (as opposed to pitchforks and shrieking).
  - wmil 14y ago
    > But, his letter is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to appeal to those who really can make a big difference in how computer crimes are treated (as opposed to pitchforks and shrieking). I actually disagree completely. Ortiz is a US Attorney. Her office is entirely aware of the legal issues. Trying to calmly inform them is a ridiculous waste of time. For some reason she decided to launch a hyper agressive prosecution against Swartz. I'm guessing she wanted a big public win to help her political career, and she figured an introverted nerd was an easy target. Under those circumstances pitchforks and shrieking are the only thing that can stop this from happening in the future.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      > I actually disagree completely. Ortiz is a US Attorney. Her office is entirely aware of the legal issues. Well for starters, legal issues are not computer code, even the law is open to interpretation. Even trained experts in the law are known to disagree as to its meaning, especially for laws as intentionally vague as CFAA. However, even assuming their expertise in the law, the U.S. Attorney's office are not automatically experts at the technology and what the use of the technology means (as we are so often reminded here on HN).
    - doomicon 14y ago
      Is Andrew Payne naive enough to think he is providing a U.S. Attorney information that she didn't already have? Providing the Chief of the "Cyber Crimes" unit information he didn't already have? That is why this letter is bunk. Federal Attorney's and Prosecutors are NOT naive to cyber crime, law, punishment, etc. They've been to law school, studied case law, prosecuted cases, worked with law enforcement. Andrew, stick to investing brother :-)
      - ScottBurson 14y ago
        As taxpayers, we all have the right to express our opinions about how our tax money is being spent. That's what this letter is about -- and very well done, too, I think -- not providing information that Ortiz might have somehow overlooked. Yes, it does summarize the facts of the case as Payne sees them, but that's just for context.
    - jim-greer 14y ago
      > Under those circumstances pitchforks and shrieking are the only thing that can stop this from happening in the future. I don't disagree, but we've had plenty of pitchforks and shrieking. A calm, factual, but pointed response in addition won't hurt.
- btilly 14y ago
  If you are trying to write something to modify someone's behavior, attacking them is a self-defeating approach. This letter walked the fine line between encouraging all of the actions that we want encouraged, while giving its recipient the feeling that the author is truly on her side. This would be a good example to study in case at some future date you need to write a persuasive letter to someone who did something that you don't like.
huherto 14y ago
In case you don't know who Andy Payne is. (like me) http://www.payne.org/index.php/Payne.org_Wiki:About http://www.payne.org/index.php/Payne.org_Wiki:About
Osiris 14y ago
It's refreshing to see someone engage at this level of dicussion, using factual backing of clearly thought-out arguments and concluding with sensible requests. Just as the author stated, however, I doubt it will have any impact, though I would certainly hope that it does.
- rhizome 14y ago
  In arguing that the overbroadness of the CFAA was something to be treated gingerly, I fear that it is more like trying to make a point to a law enforcement officer that gun triggers are too easy to pull. "Yeah, and...?"
mtp0101 14y ago
Disclaimer: I am a dumb college freshman Does this guy actually expect his letter to be read by Ortiz? It seems ridiculous to me that this guy thinks his opinion regarding the case matters at all. But now I know who he is and the URL of his website, so perhaps his more subtle goal was achieved.
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  So you think this guy sent this letter boost his own image? As you will no doubt soon find out, the world is not black and white, but excruciatingly mottled grey. Ortiz, while a lovely pincushion, is the symptom not the problem. This was standard procedure. Now I will be at every protest if she runs for higher office, not because I think she is Satan, but because it will offer an opportunity to bring attention to Aaron's cause which stands on its own merit.
gesman 14y ago
Carmen Ortiz & Co will appreciate these letters only if they'll be printed on a soft, white, quality paper.
betterunix 14y ago
Hm... "It is clear Swartz did something wrong and should have been punished" "He didn’t access something he wasn’t supposed to" "Swartz did not destroy or damage data or infrastructure" See, maybe I am just confused about the meanings of words here, but if Aaron did not access anything he was not supposed to access and did not destroy or damage anything, what exactly is it that he did wrong? Who gets to define the upper bound on how many articles a person is supposed to access, or what counts as an "appropriate" or "acceptable" method of utilizing a JSTOR subscription? Aaron was the victim here; his suicide was shocking and brought that fact to our attention, but if he were alive today he would still be the victim. I called this a senseless prosecution when I learned about it months before his death. Aaron did nothing wrong, and he deserved no punishment.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > See, maybe I am just confused about the meanings of words here, but if Aaron did not access anything he was not supposed to access and did not destroy or damage anything, what exactly is it that he did wrong? Continuing to access MIT's network after MIT tried to get him to stop. > Who gets to define the upper bound on how many articles a person is supposed to access, or what counts as an "appropriate" or "acceptable" method of utilizing a JSTOR subscription? Something called behaving like a reasonable person. The scope of a license is implied by the nature of the license. If JSTOR gives you permission to access journal articles for academic purposes, it's outside the scope of the permission to download them wholesale with intent to distribute them. Nobody needs it spelled out to them that this is the case--it's obvious from the nature of the transaction. Disclaimer: I'm not justifying the prosecutor's actions. But it's possible to support what Aaron did and think the prosecutor overreached without degrading the argument to a hyper-technical and willfully blind defense of how he didn't actually do anything wrong.
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    I think you are being a little obtuse or don't know the case. Aaron was protesting the fact that publicly funded research papers were behind an administrative paywall even though they are ostensibly free.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Thank you Andy, that was a well reasoned and clear statement of how I and others feel about this case. You clearly put a lot of effort into composing that letter and it reflects it. I can only hope that it finds its way into the thought processes of the policy makers over at the Justice department.
arbuge 14y ago
"I believe that you and Mr. Heymann were doing “what any good prosecutor would do" Disagreed. This is not what good prosectors should do. Maybe substituting "the average US prosecutor" for "any good" would be more accurate. But good prosecturs don't play the system by extracting plea bargains and guilty pleas under the threat of horrific penalties at trial.
frere 14y ago
Your post assumes this person is anything other than a political agent in a broken system. Quaint.
- frere 14y ago
  Wow, Carmen must have 500+ HN pts. I, apparently, was wrong in my assumption that she is in fact yet another political climber in a position that is famous for being a jumping off point for higher office. Obviously a democrat (appointed by Obama), her example of Aaron will surely win her points with the Hollywood/DMCA crowd. Please, downvote me again for a view that, obviously, must be sooooo far off the truth.

38 points by payne92 14y ago

Everyone regards Carmen Ortiz as this heartless evil witch, and this post is more or less defending her. I was expecting more of a response from the community over the course of almost an hour.

mpyne 14y ago
See, that's why I don't like these lynch mobs that form. He wasn't "defending her" as much as empathizing with her role and duties and using grown-up language to debate grown-up topics like a bunch of goddamn grown-ups. If treating her like an adult instead of calling for her immediate resignation is defending her then I'm not sure what to say... how can you have sane debates with ideologues? FWIW I have quibbles with the letter (e.g. it's entirely within the purview of USSS to investigate "computer crimes" due to historical circumstances) but those are just quibbles, minor areas of disagreements where sane people simply might not agree. I agree that I expect approximately zero to come of his letter, as least as far as concrete action is concerned. But, his letter is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to appeal to those who really can make a big difference in how computer crimes are treated (as opposed to pitchforks and shrieking).
- wmil 14y ago
  > But, his letter is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to appeal to those who really can make a big difference in how computer crimes are treated (as opposed to pitchforks and shrieking). I actually disagree completely. Ortiz is a US Attorney. Her office is entirely aware of the legal issues. Trying to calmly inform them is a ridiculous waste of time. For some reason she decided to launch a hyper agressive prosecution against Swartz. I'm guessing she wanted a big public win to help her political career, and she figured an introverted nerd was an easy target. Under those circumstances pitchforks and shrieking are the only thing that can stop this from happening in the future.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > I actually disagree completely. Ortiz is a US Attorney. Her office is entirely aware of the legal issues. Well for starters, legal issues are not computer code, even the law is open to interpretation. Even trained experts in the law are known to disagree as to its meaning, especially for laws as intentionally vague as CFAA. However, even assuming their expertise in the law, the U.S. Attorney's office are not automatically experts at the technology and what the use of the technology means (as we are so often reminded here on HN).
  - doomicon 14y ago
    Is Andrew Payne naive enough to think he is providing a U.S. Attorney information that she didn't already have? Providing the Chief of the "Cyber Crimes" unit information he didn't already have? That is why this letter is bunk. Federal Attorney's and Prosecutors are NOT naive to cyber crime, law, punishment, etc. They've been to law school, studied case law, prosecuted cases, worked with law enforcement. Andrew, stick to investing brother :-)
    - ScottBurson 14y ago
      As taxpayers, we all have the right to express our opinions about how our tax money is being spent. That's what this letter is about -- and very well done, too, I think -- not providing information that Ortiz might have somehow overlooked. Yes, it does summarize the facts of the case as Payne sees them, but that's just for context.
  - jim-greer 14y ago
    > Under those circumstances pitchforks and shrieking are the only thing that can stop this from happening in the future. I don't disagree, but we've had plenty of pitchforks and shrieking. A calm, factual, but pointed response in addition won't hurt.
btilly 14y ago
If you are trying to write something to modify someone's behavior, attacking them is a self-defeating approach. This letter walked the fine line between encouraging all of the actions that we want encouraged, while giving its recipient the feeling that the author is truly on her side. This would be a good example to study in case at some future date you need to write a persuasive letter to someone who did something that you don't like.

huherto 14y ago

In case you don't know who Andy Payne is. (like me) http://www.payne.org/index.php/Payne.org_Wiki:About http://www.payne.org/index.php/Payne.org_Wiki:About

Osiris 14y ago

It's refreshing to see someone engage at this level of dicussion, using factual backing of clearly thought-out arguments and concluding with sensible requests. Just as the author stated, however, I doubt it will have any impact, though I would certainly hope that it does.

rhizome 14y ago
In arguing that the overbroadness of the CFAA was something to be treated gingerly, I fear that it is more like trying to make a point to a law enforcement officer that gun triggers are too easy to pull. "Yeah, and...?"

mtp0101 14y ago

Disclaimer: I am a dumb college freshman Does this guy actually expect his letter to be read by Ortiz? It seems ridiculous to me that this guy thinks his opinion regarding the case matters at all. But now I know who he is and the URL of his website, so perhaps his more subtle goal was achieved.

youngerdryas 14y ago
So you think this guy sent this letter boost his own image? As you will no doubt soon find out, the world is not black and white, but excruciatingly mottled grey. Ortiz, while a lovely pincushion, is the symptom not the problem. This was standard procedure. Now I will be at every protest if she runs for higher office, not because I think she is Satan, but because it will offer an opportunity to bring attention to Aaron's cause which stands on its own merit.

gesman 14y ago

Carmen Ortiz & Co will appreciate these letters only if they'll be printed on a soft, white, quality paper.

betterunix 14y ago

Hm... "It is clear Swartz did something wrong and should have been punished" "He didn’t access something he wasn’t supposed to" "Swartz did not destroy or damage data or infrastructure" See, maybe I am just confused about the meanings of words here, but if Aaron did not access anything he was not supposed to access and did not destroy or damage anything, what exactly is it that he did wrong? Who gets to define the upper bound on how many articles a person is supposed to access, or what counts as an "appropriate" or "acceptable" method of utilizing a JSTOR subscription? Aaron was the victim here; his suicide was shocking and brought that fact to our attention, but if he were alive today he would still be the victim. I called this a senseless prosecution when I learned about it months before his death. Aaron did nothing wrong, and he deserved no punishment.

rayiner 14y ago
> See, maybe I am just confused about the meanings of words here, but if Aaron did not access anything he was not supposed to access and did not destroy or damage anything, what exactly is it that he did wrong? Continuing to access MIT's network after MIT tried to get him to stop. > Who gets to define the upper bound on how many articles a person is supposed to access, or what counts as an "appropriate" or "acceptable" method of utilizing a JSTOR subscription? Something called behaving like a reasonable person. The scope of a license is implied by the nature of the license. If JSTOR gives you permission to access journal articles for academic purposes, it's outside the scope of the permission to download them wholesale with intent to distribute them. Nobody needs it spelled out to them that this is the case--it's obvious from the nature of the transaction. Disclaimer: I'm not justifying the prosecutor's actions. But it's possible to support what Aaron did and think the prosecutor overreached without degrading the argument to a hyper-technical and willfully blind defense of how he didn't actually do anything wrong.
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  I think you are being a little obtuse or don't know the case. Aaron was protesting the fact that publicly funded research papers were behind an administrative paywall even though they are ostensibly free.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Thank you Andy, that was a well reasoned and clear statement of how I and others feel about this case. You clearly put a lot of effort into composing that letter and it reflects it. I can only hope that it finds its way into the thought processes of the policy makers over at the Justice department.

arbuge 14y ago

"I believe that you and Mr. Heymann were doing “what any good prosecutor would do" Disagreed. This is not what good prosectors should do. Maybe substituting "the average US prosecutor" for "any good" would be more accurate. But good prosecturs don't play the system by extracting plea bargains and guilty pleas under the threat of horrific penalties at trial.

frere 14y ago

Your post assumes this person is anything other than a political agent in a broken system. Quaint.

frere 14y ago
Wow, Carmen must have 500+ HN pts. I, apparently, was wrong in my assumption that she is in fact yet another political climber in a position that is famous for being a jumping off point for higher office. Obviously a democrat (appointed by Obama), her example of Aaron will surely win her points with the Hollywood/DMCA crowd. Please, downvote me again for a view that, obviously, must be sooooo far off the truth.