back to article Swartz prosecutor: We only pushed for 'six months' in the cooler

US attorney Carmen Ortiz, who led the fraud case against Aaron Swartz until his suicide last week, has defended her prosecution of the internet prodigy. Swartz, 26, took his life on Friday at his home in New York in the midst of a lengthy court battle that could have put him behind bars for decades. He was charged with …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Bush_rat

    It's hard to find words... R.I.P Arron

    1. LarsG
      Meh

      They can say what they want and try to defend themselves over the case.

      You take your victim as you find them, Swartz became the victim in this, but these prosecutors have skin thicker than battleship armour.

      Sadly it is unlikely they will be tormented by this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

        Here in Boston, the news is more disturbing. This was originally a local matter for MIT security and Boston police. It was a simple illegal entry violation for breaking and entering into an MIT storage closet where he had his laptop stashed,.

        Swartz would have gotten off with a slap on the wrist, maybe a fine. But then President Obama stepped in and directed his powerful Secret Service to assume control of investigation, and it went from a B&E to a major crime investigation with four indictments Six months later, Obama's Justice Department tripled the intimidation with a 13-count indictment. The Boston Globe reported that the DOJ was pushing for the full 35-year sentence.

        These journals were paid for by Federal grants, and BY LAW must be freely available. But making the data too easy to access also makes it extremely easy for others seeking grants to steal/borrow the research of others and win next year's grant.

        The Obama Administration claims Swartz wanted to publish the journals online for free, but made no claim that he wanted to profit off of them. This would have put academic research, much of it funded by federal grants, in the hands of the people who actually paid for it.

        This whole thing paints Obama's justice department as cruel and vindictive. Swartz was suffocated because he threatened the cushy federal grant system.

        1. petur
          Meh

          Re: Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

          I didn't know that when Obama came to office, he fired all prosecutors or in fact the whole justice department. I'm pretty sure that it's business as usual, whether it was Bush or Obama... No need for you to involve politics.

          Swartz should have involved politics, and demanded the freedom of information that way...

        2. BillG
          WTF?

          Re: Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

          http://www.alternet.org/activism/prosecution-aaron-swartz-paints-obamas-justice-department-needlessly-cruel-and-capricious

          Last year, pharmacist Tarek Mehanna was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison after Ortiz successfully won his conviction for conspiracy to support terrorism. His crime? He translated Arabic works that could be considered jihadist into English and published them online.

          Elliott Peters, Swartz’s attorney, said the DOJ was being unmovable and did NOT want to negotiate a plea for Swartz and wanted to make an example of him with a long prison sentence.

          Swartz embarrassed the Obama Administration. He was a leader in political movements to defeat a series of new laws, including the deceptively-named Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, that would have made it easy for the DOJ to prosecute people like Swartz with harsher punishments, which would have brought government regulation and censorship the Internet.

          "In all of its treatment of unsanctioned leakers, then, the administration of President Barack Obama has insisted on legally labeling those who liberate information as the worst kind of felons"

          My God, somebody please explain to me why Obama is being given a free pass to use his DOJ like this. Can't you all see how out of hand this is? I dare you to downvote me if you approve of Obama's hypocrisy.

          1. petecamp

            Re: Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

            Because Obama is a Democrat, so he gets a free pass! Democrats good, Republicans evil, don't you know the story line?

          2. Fred Goldstein
            FAIL

            Re: Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

            BillG, it is not Obama personally who demands a vindictive, cruel judicial system. The political culture here works that way. Ortiz is a politician herself; she was floating her name to run for governor. It is very common for politicians here in Massachusetts to rise from prosecutor. A high-visibility prosecution, whether or not justified, puts a prosecutor's name on the front page, and the local media love it. Ortiz was trying to put a big notch on her belt.

            While the state has a huge computer industry and is full of geeks who know the difference, a majority of voters probably don't, and if the Boston Globe, the Herald, and the biggest three Boston TV stations all dutifully take her at her word, then this would have been a Major Computer Criminal that she put away, and thus she would have become eligible for higher office. It's a well-trod path. Luther Scott Harshbarger helped persecute the Amirault family in the notorious Fells Acres case three decades ago. They were convicted of totally absurd charges of child abuse -- they owned a day care center which was still controversial -- mommies should stay home with kids and not work, said the right wing. He never apologized and to this day insists that that they were, essentially, witches, but got elected Attorney General. Almost made governor.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Boston, thanks for the summary

          I'm part of the Boston/Cambridge academic community too, and we were all puzzled and more than a little concerned when the Federal government got involved. Most of us voted for Obama, but we are very disturbed by the rapid speed at which the current administration has moved to criminalise intellectual property infringement without considering the wider ramifications of the laws and policies.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Boston, thanks for the summary

            You voted for Obama, you GOT Obama. You also got Chicago justice and Eric Holder. You got what you wanted, now choke on it.

            1. Local G

              Re: Boston, thanks for the summary

              Mitt Romney. The answer to all our problems. <sarc>

            2. Killraven

              Re: Boston, thanks for the summary

              Indeed we did, and as much, and as often, as I am dissatisfied with what we have, I still feel comfortable in that I do not doubt it is still better than what we could have had.

            3. Intractable Potsherd

              Re: Boston, thanks for the summary

              "You voted for Obama, you GOT Obama." I'm confused what Obama has to do with this. This seems to be entirely the local computer-ignorant district attorney. Can anyone give a nutshell explanation, please (preferably one that doesn't descend into conspiracy theory)?

              1. Intractable Potsherd

                Re: Boston, thanks for the summary - self-reply

                Apologies - I wrote "district attorney" by mistake: it should be "US attorney" - apparently they are different creatures entirely.

                I'm a bit better educated re: the political angle now, having done some reading, but I don't see where the Obama-specific angle comes from. This seems to be a much larger issue in which the entire US socio-political system (not uniquely by far) seems to be working to keep tightening controls on information. This would not be any different under any recent presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. Until there are serious candidates from outside the bi-partisan clique standing on a platform of free-er information and protection of whistle-blowers (not likely this side of the Second American Civil War), it ain't gonna change.

                By all means go after Ortiz and Heymann, and maybe try to get some support for the idea that lawyers should not be allowed to become politicians (their actions seem to be motivated by their own political ambitions), but you can't sensibly target the president specifically.

                1. Manu T

                  Re: Boston, thanks for the summary - self-reply

                  @ Intractable Potsherd:

                  The DOJ is administered by the Congress which is (currently) lead by "the Obama administration". So Obama's "entourage" is indirectly responsible for this mess. He ought to keep some of his civil servants on a shorter leash pronto before these "prosecutions" escalate into real slaughtering witch-hunts.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Boston, thanks for the summary

                "I'm confused what Obama has to do with this. This seems to be entirely the local computer-ignorant district attorney."

                Um, no. There is no such thing as a local Federal case.

                The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch and is under the direct authority of the President of the United States. The President sets prosecutorial guidelines. He can initiate and terminate any prosecution at his sole discretion.

                Once the Boston DOJ got involved it was no longer a local case, it became a FEDERAL case, under the authority of, and responsible to, the President. The buck stops with him. Understand?

                The President, through his Attorney General Eric Holder, decides what is and isn't a major case. The Swartz case, like Manning, was/is well publicized and Obama has to know about it. If Obama wouldn't pardon Manning, he certainly wouldn't pardon Swartz.

                An online petition on whitehouse.gov to remove Carmen Ortiz quickly exceeded the 25,000 signatures required for a White House response. BUT, instead of Obama answering the petition as promised, President Obama personally raised the threshold for an official petition response from 25,000 to 100,000 signatures, and the 100,000 must now be reached within 30 days!

                I'm a Kennedy Democrat. Obama isn't any kind of liberal I'm familiar with.

                The petition is now up to 46,000 signatures:

                https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck

                I urge everyone to sign. Why wouldn't you?

            4. Manu T

              Re: Boston, thanks for the summary

              "You voted for Obama, you GOT Obama. You also got Chicago justice and Eric Holder. You got what you wanted, now choke on it."

              Who says what's happened here is typical Obama (democratic) signature? The US Congress is still run by BOTH the democrats AND the republicans. And these control the DOJ!

              The problem is that in many countries many votes don't mean anything. Even in the country where I'm in. The party that got the most votes isn't even represented in the government (only in the opposition). So much for elections and democracy. It's all a big fat joke! Everywhere!

              And normal people why try try to make ends meet are the victims of all this shit! Fuck them all!

        4. Ian Michael Gumby
          WTF?

          @AC ... Re: Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

          Not sure why you were down voted.

          I believe that you succinctly mentioned the facts of the case.

          Aaron did in fact break in to an MIT networking closet and circumvented the APIs for interfacing the system.

          The WTF is for those who down voted the Anon.

          C'mon guys Seriously?

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

          I suppose Obama is behind the sun disappearing each night too.

        6. veti Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

          @AC 16:30: That the Obama Administration is in the pocket of Big Media should surprise nobody who's been paying attention for at least a couple of years. A hypothetical Romney administration might have been less so, but only because it would have been so busy scratching the backs of his supporters. (For instance, I have no doubt at all that if Romney were in the White House, the FAA would never have ordered the grounding of all Boeing 787s.)

          So let's not pretend there is a political solution to this mess, at least not one that involves any party or structure currently existing in the USA. Politicians just don't give a rat's arse about the occasional martyr, right up until the point where he manages to achieve global headlines.

          I guess maybe Swartz knew that, and he saw there was one, and only one, way in which he could make those sorts of headlines. Maybe he was looking to immortalise himself in the same way as Mohamed Bouazizi. If so, I wish he'd been right, but I very much doubt it. Martyrs don't cut that much ice in the west - we're too busy arguing about whose brand of scumsucking demagogues is better or worse than the alternative.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

            "Martyrs don't cut that much ice in the west "

            however this WILL irrevocably cause damage to the Obama administration in the long run...

            "we're too busy arguing about whose brand of scumsucking demagogues is better or worse than the alternative"

            You mean we're to bussy reading El Reg's "10 best Crapdroid apps of 2012". I'm afraid you're right about about that. :-(

      2. solidsoup
        Stop

        Prosecutor not to blame

        It seems quite a few people here don't understand how this actually works. Over 90% of cases in US are decided through a plea bargain. This means that the prosecutor and the defendant/lawyer sit down and negotiate what the sentence would be if the defendant were to plead guilty. It's not clear from her statement, but it's likely that 6 months term was the carrot for pleading guilty, not the stick that she threatened with should the case go to court. I think she's being disingenious there. The stick may have 30 years maximum sentence, however, there's no evidence to suggest that she would likely have asked for that in the trial. What would happen is prosecutor would ask for sentence on a high end that still appears reasonable to the judge, counting on the judge reducing it somewhat. How much a prosecutor asks for officially wouldn't even enter the picture until sentencing hearing and is predicated upon how many counts the defendant is convicted on.

        Now it may seem that this is an example of overzealous prosecution, but threatening a defendant with a high sentence is an inherent feature of a plea bargain system. There are advantages and disadvantages to it, however there is little blame that should be shouldered by the prosecutor in this case because the threat of high sentences is a systematic disadvantage of the system. Now as to the law in question, it certainly should be changed to be more specific as it is too wide a tool and a prosecutor can use it in any computer crime to force the defendant to take the plea bargain.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Prosecutor not to blame

          "...how this actually works" *is* the problem. US-Style plea bargaining (as implemented) is an sometimes-evil system that would force even the innocent to plead guilty.

          Or, in this case, force the accused of what should be a misdemeanor to choose between 1) being a felon with a 6-month sentence, 2) being a felon with perhaps a decades-long sentence and bankrupted, or 3) suicide. Option 4 would have been a violent rampage.

          1. Fibbles

            Re: Prosecutor not to blame

            "1) being a felon with a 6-month sentence, 2) being a felon with perhaps a decades-long sentence and bankrupted, or 3) suicide. Option 4 would have been a violent rampage."

            Option 4: Got to the minimum security prison and launch an appeal. Become a prisoner of conscience and use your imprisonment to your advantage in a campaign to change the law.

            He committed a crime which was obviously going to get him in trouble and which lead him into the path of a prosecutor who was obviously out for blood. None of that is a reason for suicide, he was being intimidated, not tortured.

            If somebody decides to dangle from a length of rope, that's their own doing, nobody else's.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Fibbles - Re: Prosecutor not to blame

              What crime ? We was entitled to download those articles but he did it too fast instead of downloading one at the time. MIT has a liberal access policy allowing anyone free access to these documents without any authentication all you need is to walk on their campus and plug your laptop into their network. Is this a crime which deserves 30 years in prison ? This is exactly what prosecution did, they ignored all this evidence and went for the harshest punishments.

              Also are you aware option 4 involves millions of dollars that might have not been readily available for the poor young man ? Let's not get silly, shall we ?

              1. Fibbles

                Re: @Fibbles - Prosecutor not to blame

                "What crime ?"

                Breaking into a secured area of the campus? Deliberately bypassing repeated attempts to keep him off the network?

                " Is this a crime which deserves 30 years in prison ?"

                I didn't say it was.

                "Also are you aware option 4 involves millions of dollars that might have not been readily available for the poor young man ?"

                It takes millions of dollars to turn up to court and represent yourself? In what universe?

                1. tom dial Silver badge

                  Re: @Fibbles - Prosecutor not to blame

                  The basic criminal offense appears to be trespass in a network closet reported elsewhere to have been used also as a sleeping area by a homeless person. That, and violation of JStor's terms of service by automating search and download. I'm not a lawyer, but given that JStor declined to pursue the matter (credit to them on that) I wonder if the normal result, if processed locally, wouldn't have been a misdemeanor no-contest plea with a fine and probation.

                  One real problem with this is treating TOS violations, which ought to be a civil matter anyhow, as a high level federal felony. That is not allowable in all federal court districts. As a US taxpayer I object to the investigators prosecutors spending time on such relatively trivial matters as this particular case. One might infer reasonably that the federal police agencies and U. S. attorney offices need downsizing.

            2. Tom 13

              @Fibbles: You need to stop this now.

              You're interrupting their 2 minute Hate.

            3. Manu T

              Re: Prosecutor not to blame

              "he was being intimidated"

              Intimidation IS torture!

              It's not because it's psychological torture that it isn't torture at all.

          2. solidsoup

            @AC 16:49

            I beg to differ. Given how expensive jury trials are, it's inevitable that most cases need to be solved pre-trial. Plea-bargaining, despite its disadvantages, is the most fair way to do so and still allow for jury trials. Now what I think should be changed are the unreasonbly high sentences for crimes that don't involve violance. Particularly those that deal with computers and drugs.

            1. Rob Crawford

              Re: @AC 16:49

              How can it be fair when innocent people are effectively forced into pleading guilty as the between the cost of defending yourself (forget the public defenders) and the sentences being so ridiculous.

              Also the puritan streak that is so common in the US has the viewpoint that if you appear in court you MUST be guilty (unless you are rich or a sports star)

              Also where exactly did the damage to a computer system accusation, it's quite hard to damage a system by downloading documents individually

              1. solidsoup

                Re: @AC 16:49

                The unfair aspect is the huge sentences involved for trivial crimes because of unecessarily broad law. Plea bargaining as such is not really the problem here. As to innocent people who plead guilty, I'm more concerned about innocent people who get convicted. A jury trial actually reduces conviction rates and increases the standard for prosecutors to reach. If someone wants to exercise their personal responsibility and plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit, that's on them. Most of such cases aren't black and white anyway.

            2. The First Dave

              Re: @AC 16:49

              Plea-bargaining is not a fair way to do anything - sentencing is the job of the Judge, not of the (alledged) criminal. In more enlightened countries, the defendant has the same opportunity to plead guilty, and save the court's time, which is rewarded by the Judge handing down a lighter sentance.

              1. solidsoup

                Re: @AC 16:49

                @ First Dave

                A common misunderstanding of what plea-bargaining involves here. Once the defendant and the prosecutor agree, prosecutor has to recommend the agreed-upon sentence to the judge. While in most cases, the judge will just use that sentence, it's completely up to them. Judges sometimes give a lower sentence if they consider the agreed upon one to be unfair or refuse to allow the plea-bargain entirely. They can also issue a greater sentence than the prosecution recommends. That's what happened in Polanski case - the judge was going to issue a much greater sentence than the prosecutor recommended.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @AC 16:49

              Healthcare and habeas corpus are expensive luxuries, convicts are executed and creation is science. Which millenium is this?

            4. Intractable Potsherd

              Re: @AC 16:49@ solidsoup

              "I beg to differ. Given how expensive jury trials are, it's inevitable that most cases need to be solved pre-trial. Plea-bargaining, despite its disadvantages, is the most fair way to do so and still allow for jury trials." Hmmmm - I suppose that depends whether you (assuming you are American) like being in a country with a ridiculous percentage of its population in prison. From my viewpoint, the system is not fair, and certainly not efficient, but then I have always been on the side of "better that ten guilty people walk free than one innocent person be imprisoned".*

              * Yes, I know the original use of this said "hanged", but it was made at the time that hanging was the preferred punishment for many crimes. The point is the same - the State should not get away with using its powers to remove liberty from anyone (citizen or not) without due process and the presumption of innocence.

        2. Evan Essence
          Stop

          Re: Prosecutor not to blame

          The "justice" for which America is famed throughout the world.

          1. Tom 35

            Re: Prosecutor not to blame

            If he was a Banker he could have given them 10% of his ill gotten gain and not even admit guilt. But he pissed off the wrong people and squished.

        3. Ian Michael Gumby
          Boffin

          @solidsoup ... Re: Prosecutor not to blame

          While I agree with what you wrote,

          I wonder what sort of mandatory sentencing guidelines would have been forced had he gone and lost at trial.

          I mean heck, you could get a longer sentence for growing pot than someone who commits murder thanks to the Mandatory sentencing guidelines.

          The other issue, like it or not, its now what Aaron intended to do with the material but how he got the material which landed him in hot water.

          If the Anon poster is correct and the Boston Globe article showed that the WH stepped in to make Obama look tough on crime... well I guess its too late to not vote for him...

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Prosecutor not to blame

          "the threat of high sentences is a systematic disadvantage of the system"

          And the best way to change the system is to give the prosecutor a Big taste of her own medicine.

        5. Leon T
          Pirate

          Re: Prosecutor not to blame

          The same prosecutor chose very nice carrots for health care execs:

          http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/the-tragic-case-of-aaron-swartz-unequal.html

          So Ortiz definitely should be shouldering the blame. Typical US "justice": preferential treatment for the wealthy and powerful.

          Prison sentences for non-violent crimes are absurd.

    2. Mikel
      Mushroom

      Some words

      US Attorney Ortiz "makes clear" that she decides what is reasonable and appropriate for her office and staff to do. Not you. So take your public outcry about injustice and stuff it. "I've looked into it and found that, after further review, I did the right thing."

  2. Aqua Marina

    I wonder if the documentation...

    ... has been amended to match the new official line?

  3. frank ly

    'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

    "Swartz faced 13 felony charges including counts of wire fraud, computer fraud and recklessly damaging a protected computer, which could cumulatively carry a sentence of more than 30 years."

    Those don't sound like low-sentence, low security prison crimes. Could it be that somebody is lying?

    1. Chris Miller

      Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

      Read the article - 30 years might be the maximum conceivable sentence, but the prosecutor says she wasn't pushing for that and thought 6 months would be appropriate. She might be lying, of course, but I don't see why his defenc/se team would want to collude in such a lie.

      1. austerusz

        Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

        @Chris: I think you should read a bit more carefully, all the counts sum up to *over* 30 years. Not maximum, just the average sentence of each count against Aaron. Nobody said 30 is the maximum and exactly because it's not the maximum it's conceivable that Aaron would have spent around 30 years in jail.

        The prosecutor might have had good intentions but like she said, in the end, it's up to the judge. The prosecutor could have recommended a lower sentence, sure, but it's highly doubtful a judge would have agreed to that.

        1. Turtle

          @austerusz

          "I think you should read a bit more carefully, all the counts sum up to *over* 30 years. Not maximum, just the average sentence of each count against Aaron. Nobody said 30 is the maximum and exactly because it's not the maximum it's conceivable that Aaron would have spent around 30 years in jail."

          Your reading skills are very impressive; you are able to read things not even in the article. Here's what it *actually* says, just to refresh you memory:

          "Swartz faced 13 felony charges including counts of wire fraud, computer fraud and recklessly damaging a protected computer, which could cumulatively carry a sentence of more than 30 years."

          Now I understand that you and others like you feel a compulsion to dramatize the matter in order to maximize its political and propaganda value, but out of curiosity, where exactly do you see anything about "average sentences" or any similar foolishness? A phrase like "more than 30 years" means "a maximum of 30 years and a few" and not 40 or 50 or 397 and why it is so opaque to you is a question worth answering. It is not a phrase difficult to understand, except, I have to suppose, if one's preconceptions do not let you understand very plain, everyday English.

          Unless of course you want to cite a source that says that the sentences carried cumulative prison time of than, let's say 35 years.

          That he would spend 30 years in prison may be "conceivable" to you and other loudmouths but not to anyone who actually knows anything about the court system and the rules governing judges and the sentences that they are permitted or required to impose.

          But then again, "ignorance" the very hallmark of the people trying to make political capital out of this guy's suicide.

          "The prosecutor could have recommended a lower sentence, sure, but it's highly doubtful a judge would have agreed to that."

          This is yet another example of the ignorance being marshaled to make a martyr out of this guy when his real problem was psychiatric and was of his own doing (and more than likely the encouragement of his acquaintances such as Lessig and similar trash who either tacitly or explicitly encouraged stupid behavior like undermining a non-profit academic archive. What kind of asshole does things like that? JSTOR is NOT Elsevier for fucks sake.) You can think that it's "doubtful" that a judge would agree to a sentence of less than 30 years but just what are you basing that opinion on? Let's be honest: it's just something you pulled out of your ass. Find me examples of people who have committed non-violent crimes, with no profit accruing, who were first time offenders and received prison sentences of any appreciable length. And we can compare Swartz' case to whatever cases you come up with. I will be very surprised if you find *any*, but *if* there are, then they would be few and with circumstances making them very different than this case. (I.e. espionage, etc.)

          One last word: if what USDA Carmen Ortiz says is true, and if Swartz' lawyer has been the source of all the misinformation and disinformation floating around, then Swartz' lawyer needs to be disbarred.

          1. fandom

            Crimes also have minimum sentences, so what does the minimum sentences of those 13 charges add up to?

            If it is more than 6 months, the attorney is lying,

            1. midcapwarrior
              FAIL

              Ever heard sentence to run concurrently

              The judge and prosecuter can and do call for concurrent sentences which mean that it can definetly be a 6 month sentence.

              1. PT

                Re: Ever heard sentence to run concurrently

                No, I don't think I have. Not in the USA, anyway. Of course I'm not familiar with all the cases decided, but in the high profile ones I've heard of it's normal for someone accused of, say, killing six people to get six consecutive life sentences, occasionally with an extra 100 years tacked on just in case.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Turtle - Re: @austerusz

            Easy, dude! That guy had permission to download those articles. If he would have downloaded them one at a time we would never had this discussion here. What he did was to download them much faster than normally using a script. 30 years in prison for faster downloading ? If you would know something about computers you will see there's something wrong with this.

            Oh and Lawrence Lssig is a prominent law school professor so calling him trash speaks volumes about your IQ and education level, unless of course you too are a highly respected academic.

            1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: @Turtle - @austerusz

              There was a conviction for computer hacking in the UK

              The person made a charity donation on a website, he didn't get a confirmation page so manually added "/.." to the address just to check that it wasn't a dodgy link.

              He was found guilty and got a minor fine. Except he can't get a job now with a criminal record, can't travel to the US, gets his DNA in lots of police databases .....

        2. Manu T

          Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

          Ah, so putting someone in jail for a "over 30 years" for a minor misdemeanor (of which the "victim" already retrieved the goods and didn't commence further charges in the first place) is nowadays called "good intentions"?

          Funny how everyone is full of "good intentions" these days, yet the world is in a horrible shape.

          Swarts had good intentions to distribute the retrieved documents for free...

          Ortiz had the good intentions to put him in jail "upto over 30 years"...

          Think I'm gonna hang myself now...

      2. frank ly

        @Chris Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

        " ...but the prosecutor says she wasn't pushing for that and thought 6 months would be appropriate. "

        That was my point. I don't see how any prosecutor can bring charges that can net 30 years, or more, and then say , "I only expected him to get 6 months and that was what I was asking for". To my inexperienced and possibly naive ears, it sounds like a lie. It certainly beggars my belief.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: @Chris 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

          The prosecutor effectively decides the sentence.

          Almost all crimes in the US (and certainly all white-collar crimes) are decided by plea bargain.

          The prosecutor offers 6months if you plead guilty, or threatens 30years if you don't

          It saves court time and money and leads to the prosecutor getting a very politically advantages 100% conviction rate

        2. Tom 13

          Re: prosecutor ... can net 30 years,..., "I only expected him to get 6 months

          That would be because you are unaware of the leniency of the US court systems. I would.

          We routinely see lawyers on tv rack up the possible sum of time a defendant COULD serve if convicted of all charges running into hundreds of years. Then 4 years later when the pre-trial, trial, and appeals are done, the convicted perp gets 3 years less time served plus potential time off for good behavior and possible parole after 1 year of time served (which includes any time spent in detention prior to the trial).

      3. JEDIDIAH
        Linux

        Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

        "We really didn't mean it" is absurd.

        This was blatant blackmail and it should be thought of as such. They might as well have held a gun to the kid's head. Being a felon has all sorts of implications beyond the trip to jail.

        I challenge anyone trying to trivialize the prison sentence to go spend 6 months in a US federal prison NOW.

        Otherwise, STFU.

        Talk is cheap.

    2. John Lilburne

      Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

      Some years ago the maximum penalty for burglary is 14 years, which was also the maximum sentence for possession of pot. But we know that hardly anyone got hit that hard. £25 fine plus costs, or probation. Maybe if the rozzers caught someone burgling multiple times they'd get a short custody sentence. The maximum is never what a first timer gets.

      My impression is that this is mostly the middle classes not thinking that the law applies to them.

      1. Tom 35

        Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

        But it all depends who you pissed off.

        If you say guessed my email password and posted my emails all over the internet I don't think I could get the cops to do more then had me a form to fill out.

        Now if it's some politicians email account, and you make them look bad... off to jail you go.

    3. Manu T

      Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right

      It depends on what you mean by " lying".

      IF exaggerating = lying THEN yes

  4. b0llchit Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Psychological extortion

    Plea bargain is basically a form of (psychological) extortion. You just talk up the penalty and see what happens. The plea bargain system is corrupt in favor of the prosecution.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Psychological extortion

      Agreed - it is a means of coercing the innocent into pleading guilty, by threatening them with a massively disproportionate penalty if they have the cheek to say they are innocent and are then found guilty.

  5. The BigYin

    Appropriate?

    Even though JSTOR had no interest in pursuing the matter?

    1. Vin King

      Re: Appropriate?

      JSTOR had no interest pursuing it as a civil matter. They had enough interest to pursue it as a criminal matter, though, or they wouldn't have reported it to the feds.

      1. Tom 7

        Re: Appropriate?

        MIT called in the FEDS.

  6. Vin King
    Meh

    Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!

    Everyone wants to point fingers at everyone else like they're responsible for any of the choices made by this guy, but at the end of the day, he's fully responsible for every decision he made. From breaking the law to ending his life, the entire onus is on him. What ever happened to owning up to your actions? Did Mitnick off himself because of a six month summer camp trip? Did Manning? What about Assange? The kid had problems that a slight case of prosecution didn't cause.

    1. Ian 62

      Re: Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!

      I believe that most people are more disappointed at the apparent 2-tier justice system (UK and US).

      We have international bankers, dealers, executives, all commiting massive financial crimes or safety negligence and they are never held liable. Perhaps a fine to the corporation, paid by shareholders/insurance/etc but never a suit in jail.

      Yet the small fish, yes have broken laws, are prosecuted/hounded to the maximum. Extradited from countries where they have commited no offense. Arrested in illegal dawn raids, etc.

      Its time for a 'fair' justice system. Either prosecute the executives in the same way as the rest of us, or the rest of us in the same way as the executives.

      1. Dapprman

        Re: Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!

        @ Ian 62

        Actually bankers do go down, even if their actions were legal at the time and the law written after - this was one of the issues on the Natwest Three.

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!

          "Actually bankers do go down," - but not often enough, many would say. Bringing in an exceptional situation (the Natwest Three) doesn't really add to the argument.

    2. Rob Crawford

      Re: Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!

      Errr have you ever actually read about Mitnicks time in custody ......

      No I thought not

      Assange recently ran away and cried like a girl,

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More information

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/ortiz-heymann-swartz-accountability-abuse

    1. Evan Essence
      Thumb Up

      Re: More information

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/ortiz-heymann-swartz-accountability-abuse

      I read that, good article. The savage American "justice" system is politically-driven, in this case by Ortiz's political ambition.

      And a good quote from Declan McCullagh, pointing out: "If Swartz had stolen a $100 hard drive with the JSTOR articles, it would have been a misdemeanor offense that would have yielded probation or community service."

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @ Evan Essence Re: More information

        And the UK "justice system" isnt? ahaha, dont make me laugh!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!

    Folks,

    Instead of wildly postulating, you should probably read some of the articles here: http://boingboing.net/tag/aaronsw (particularly those written by Cory Doctorow)

    and here: http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/

    And here; http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/07/articles/series/special-comment/aaron-swartz-computer-fraud-indictment/

    That "Unhandled" page is by Alex Stamos who is well known expert in the cybersecurity business and who was going to testify on Aaron Swartz behalf in his trial. There is a wealth of info and links on that page.

    In his considered opinion, there was no crime of trespass, nothing was "stolen" and Aaron even returned the documents he had downloaded back to JSTOR who dropped the charges and the Fed's continued the prosecution even though without Jstor pressing charges there can be no further prosecution.

    MIT's network (wired or wireless) was open to all just like free wifi so there was no trespass.

    The Fed's wanted a guilty verdict (remember that he won a case against them not too long ago and they had a grudge) and the piled on the charges threatening him with sentencing up to 35 years in prison if he did not accept a "guilty" plea of 33 charges but only 6 months in jail.

    This is a common tactic in the US justice system where the cost (both mental and monetary) of fighting such a case will take a toll on the plaintiff to the point where they usually capitulate and take a guilty plea just to be rid of the problem.

    The trouble is that people of principles like Aaron usually don't want to be tagged as guilty when they believe they are not guilty. This wore him down financially and mentally until something broke and he committed suicide.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!

      "Instead of wildly postulating"

      [snip]

      "This wore him down financially and mentally until something broke and he committed suicide."

      So instead of wildly postulating, everyone should read a few blogs, write several factual paragraphs and *then* wildly postulate?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!

        Is that you Matt Bryant?

        The fact that the links were to blogs does not lessen the credentials of those who wrote them.

        The "indictment" is a complete fabrication of lies and deceipt. It has less worth than used toilet paper and certainly less worth than the "blogs".

    2. Stevie

      Re: Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!

      Or, you could, you know, read the indictment and the statements of those involved.

      Sorry to repeat myself, but then, so are you.

    3. Manu T

      Re: Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!

      Still people keep emigrating to the "land of the Free"... fools.

  9. Rodrigo Valenzuela

    I really believe that the public outrage for this suicide is pointing to the wrong person.

    A civil servant has several duties, the first among them is to withhold the law.

    Because of that, Mrs. Ortiz could not turn a blind eye to the acts of Mr. Swartz and let them slip under the radar.

    The real problem, in my opinion, is that the law needs several adjustments to be really useful in protecting intellectual property while still allowing access to it.

    So, if the Americans really are enraged by this sad story, please do something concrete.

    Call, write or email your representatives and pressure them to change the law.

    Stop complaining while doing nothing.

    R

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

      R,

      Screw the civil servants and these so called laws, Ortiz did what she did to increase her publicity and to guarantee a guilty verdict from an innocent man.

      In the process, she alone decided to pursue the prosecution of a case that no longer had a plaintiff (Jstor) and used all of the resources of the legal system to put unneccessary pressure on Aaron Swartz.

      That pressure killed him. There is no difference between her holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger and what she did.

      Murder charges would be too kind for her.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

        "There is no difference between her holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger and what she did."

        Err, yes there is. There's quite a lot of difference. Are you nine years old?

      2. Rodrigo Valenzuela

        Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

        @AC 15:58 GMT

        The innocence of Mr. Swartz has not been proved, and sadly it will never be.

        All that we have now are several opinions from different quarters, but not a legal ruling.

        I don't know if there are political or personal motivations behind the acts of Mrs. Ortiz and nobody else but herself can know it.

        If there are illegal or too far reaching acts from the side of Mrs. Ortiz, then there are legal ways to restrict them, but public lynching is not the method to ensure that they will not be repeated.

        Your words about "no difference between her holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger" are really too emotional to be worth considering.

        I, personally, think that there was a violation of the law (maybe I'm right, maybe not).

        But I also think that the law itself is wrong, unfair to the citizens and completely out of proportion in the punishments it allows.

        Hence, my recommendation to the American citizens of do something about them.

        R

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

          R,

          My words about there being no difference between holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger are emotional for a good reason and are certainly worth considering. They are soley to bring attention to this tradgedy.

          The prosecutor and the DOJ KNEW that Aaron Swartz was clinically depressed (because they were told). The fact that they knew of his mental state AND played psychological games with him in presenting plea deals then taking them away and back and forth at a minimum constitutes "Depraved Indifference" or Criminally Negligent Homicide" This because they used his weakness against him for legal advantage.

          This torture resulted in Aaron being driven to suicide. I know how dark ones thoughts become under undue pressure and I'm still here to talk about it.

          As a survivor, this is why this is subject is so concerning to me.

          If you look through the Boston Globe you will find plenty of reasons to suspect Ortiz motives (such as she is trying become a candidate for Governor of Massachussetts and more)

          That Swartz cannot have his day in court to prove his innocence is all the more tragic because that only happened for an attention seeking politicians personal gain.

          The only recommendation that American Citizens need is to take back our government from politicians like Ortiz and others. Only then these unconstitutional laws can finally be repealed.

          1. veti Silver badge
            Terminator

            Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

            @AC 18:49

            My words about there being no difference between holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger are emotional for a good reason and are certainly worth considering. They are soley to bring attention to this tradgedy.

            I'm sorry, you don't get to decide whether your words are "worth considering", at least not by anyone except yourself. As for "bringing attention" to this tragedy - good grief, it's had headlines on every media outlet in the world and a good fraction of all known blogs - how much more attention do you think you're bringing exactly?

            That Swartz cannot have his day in court to prove his innocence... - is tragic, sure. But let's be honest - he was never going to "prove his innocence" in court, because he wasn't innocent. He broke the law, he knew he was breaking the law, and he knew there was plenty of evidence to prove he'd done it. The best, the very best that he could have achieved in court was to make a few speeches about how stupid the law is and how it needs to be changed, which might or might not have made a few rumbles of publicity but, let's face it, nothiing like what he's got now.

            Civil disobedience is a fine and noble thing, but when you break the law you have to be prepared to face the consequences - no matter how just your cause. Thoreau knew that. So did Gandhi, and Solzhenitsyn, and Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks, and everyone else who ever achieved anydamnthing by those means. These people spent time - long time, in some cases - in jail for what they believed.

            And if they hadn't been willing to do that, we'd never have heard of them.

            1. dkjd

              Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

              So "veti" he wasn't innocent? Are you saying that in America you are now guilty until proven innocent? I thought you still had to have a trial first! I think you have been reading too many Judge Dread comics.

              1. Vic

                Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

                > Judge Dread

                * Dredd *

                Vic.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

              ... the only real thing he did was downloading documents way faster (using a script) than one by one. From a publicly available source. I (and so does many others) fail to see whats so criminal about that?

              Those guys who caused the world wide economic bank-crisis got away with everything (including filled pockets) while something so trivial as this gets the prosecutors attention like he's a worldwide serial killer.

              Double standards anyone?

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

              Veti, I get to decide anything I want, because I (for the time being) live in a country where I can say what I bloody well want to. Regardless of YOUR opinion, I know my words are "worth considering". As far as bringing attention goes, there have been a lot of people that agree with the viewpoints I have put forth so again some meager value to my words and more folks that know about this case.

              Aaron Swartz was not guilty in the opinions of quite educated people that I have linked to. That their opinions were read by more people is all I can ask for as the more that hear the real truth about this case, the better.

              This case has never been about any crime, it has always been a Department of Justice vendetta against Aaron Swartz because he was an Internet & Copyright Freedom Activist, he legally downloaded 20% of PACER database (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and they got put on the Internet for free and he was one of the people responsible for helping to shoot down SOPA/PIPA.

              The PACER case was the real reason why DoJ wanted to make an example out of Aaron Swartz on the MIT JSTOR case The electronic court record system is all based on public information but sat behind a paywall and Aaron used trial free access to the system and used a similar script to download about 20% of all of the court records. Though investigated by the FBI, no charges were filed.

              More details are here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/swartz-fbi/

              The PACER case was extremely similar to the latest MIT/JSTOR case.

              At a minimum, civil disobedience is the LEAST thing that can be done to counter the outright lawbreaking that the DoJ did and continues to do. Mental torture is no different than physical torture and perhaps could be a lot worse based on your state of mind.

              Unconstitutional laws should never have been allowed in the first place, cases as tenuous as this one should never have passed a Grand Jury indictment.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

          "Hence, my recommendation to the American citizens of do something about them."

          Which is very hard to do if you know that the majority of American citizens votes have no meaning. That country is run by corporate greed, rich lobbyists that dictate/steer/bribe the course of governmental direction and political representatives that resemble more of flamboyant moviestars than actually pursuing the job that they're supposed to do (improve welfare for ALL American citizens)!

          Just as in every western country I guess :-(

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

        The "state" is the plaintiff in criminal cases - you can't bring a private criminal case against someone else, so it's irrelevant that JSTOR dropped their complaint - once the criminal case has been initiated, JSTOR was not a direct party to the case, except as a witness. As a Witness, their opinions are no longer relevant, only their knowledge of the facts of the case.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy

          "...so it's irrelevant that JSTOR dropped their complaint..."

          Which directly is the cause of this WRONG justice system!

          JSTOR initiated the "case" and hence should be able to stop it as well. It starts there AND SHOULD END THERE! Period!

          If JSTOR feels that no further actions are necessary to commence in this matter than that should halt the prosecution! Instead of this show down of incompetent administrative clerks with no regards for the consequences of THEIR actions!

    2. Stevie

      Hurrah!

      Well said. You'll be downvoted like mad, of course, because the hounds have been released, h4xors=GOD and every person charged with implementing the law is intrinsically evil, and out for their own aggrandizement. Even the judge who would have sat this case has been maligned as a venal, corrupt, clever-person hater and he/she isn't even aware they have been placed in the crosshairs because the case hadn't gone to trial yet.

      I find it interesting that so many people are linking Doctorow but none are wondering at why Cory the Great isn't defending himself in a similar action. Could it be he understands that illegal activities have consequences? That changing a law is best done by amassing a consensus than by breaking said law?

      Oh well. Have an upvote for being the only person today who hasn't libeled the government and/or its legal representatives simply because they can.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. This post has been deleted by its author

    5. PT

      "Call, write or email your representatives..."

      These "representatives" of which you speak sound interesting. Unfortunately, I haven't got one - they gave me a "lawmaker". I'm sure he represents someone, perhaps the people with names starting with "Americans For ..." something that paid for all his campaign ads, except the one paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > A civil servant has several duties, the first among them is to withhold the law.

    No. A civil servant's duty is to uphold the law, not withhold it for personal political gain.

    1. Stevie
      Thumb Down

      Well done for spotting the obvious typo and playing into it.

    2. Rodrigo Valenzuela

      @AC 16:23

      Yes, you are right.

      I used the wrong word.

      R

  11. Andrew Norton

    She wasn't going to recomend 6 months; so not even her husband believes her. I say that because earlier this week, he (an IBM exec) launched a tirade on twitter about it (http://blogs.bostonmagazine.com/boston_daily/2013/01/15/carmen-ortizs-husband-twitter-aaron-swartz/), saying the PLEABARGAIN was for 6 months. When he turned it down, then Ortiz said they'd push for 7, which matches the rest of the claims.

    Oh, and the INITIAL indictment was for 35 years max, with just the 5 charges "wire fraud; unauthorized access to a protected computer system; reckless damage to a protected computer system; aiding and abetting; criminal forfeiture"

    Ortiz added more charges recently, upping it to 13 charges, and 50+ years max.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Even if...

    ... Even if she hadn't pushed for more than 6 months, it's up to the judge and the jury to decide the appropriate figure.

    And even the judge could overrule the jury's amount, so all her promises and statements are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Even if...(You are completely Naiive)

      The Federal Prosecutor is ALWAYS involved in sentencing recommendations on Federal cases. By the way, all plea bargains have to be accepted before trial starts or they no longer matter and he could have gotten 35 plus years if there was a real trial. FWIW, the "Judge" does get to make sentencing reccommendations and also set the framework for the Jury to decide the case.

      Who do you think "recommends" who becomes a Judge? Federal and State Politicians do.

  13. Alan Johnson

    No one knows and no one will now know whether he was guilty of anything. He has at least a reasonable defence that he committed no crime at all. He had permission to use the network and he had permission to download the documents. Some of the charges seem without any foundation at all for example 'reckless damage to a protected computer system' .

    The problem is:

    Completely disproportionate punishments were computer crimes are concerne din the US.

    Plea bargain system

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Optimist!

      Don't you realise that in the modern common-law system, once you are dead, you are automatically guilty of anything you are accused of? Look at recent developments in England (Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, John Peel) - no-one says "alleged" - they all did it because the police said so.

      1. Manu T

        Re: Optimist!

        "Don't you realise that in the modern common-law system, once you are dead, you are automatically guilty of anything you are accused of? Look at recent developments in England"

        Indeed the UK justice also goes in the wrong direction. Soon everybody is afraid to die. :-)

  14. Alan Johnson

    No one knows and no one will now know whether he was guilty of anything. He has at least a reasonable defence that he committed no crime at all. He had permission to use the network and he had permission to download the documents. Some of the charges seem without any foundation at all for example 'reckless damage to a protected computer system' .

    The problem is completely disproportionate punishments for computer crimes and the plea bargain system. The combination drives people to think they have no alternative but to acept significant punishments without any chance to proof their innocence because of massively disproportionate sentance if they please innocent and are unlucky.

    Computer crimes can be serious but when unauthorised log on to an insecure system of no real significance is classified as cyber terrorism there is a problem akin to the witch trials of the past.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    > ...a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low-security setting.

    Whay, to miss the point.

    This guy shouldn't have been convicted of anything.

    JSTOR didn't want to press any charges against him. That should have been enough for the US government.

  16. Nigel 11
    Mushroom

    Lesson for UK to learn: scrap extradition treaty with USA

    What happened in this case is almost certainly what would also have happened to gary McKinnon, had our home secretary not suffered a last-minute attack of commonsense.

    the US "justice" system is designed so that prosecutors can and do put innocent people in jail for several years, because the alternative is something like risking incarceration for life with no prospect of ever being released. We should not extradite anyone to the USA, until a UK court is satisfied:

    That there is prima facie evidence of a crime and of the accused person's guilt

    That the correct jurisdiction to try the case is the USA not the UK

    That the alleged "crime" is criminal under "natural justice" or UK law, as well as US law

    And IMO, that the accused person is not and will not be threatened with any punishment that is in the opinion of a UK court, grossly excessive. Because that's how they persuade innocent men to plead guilty, or to kill themselves.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lesson for UK to learn: scrap extradition treaty with USA

      I completely agree.

      My country has lost it's moral compass; in an effort to make headlines and get convictions, all thoughts of ethics and justice for citizens everywhere in the USA have been tossed into the trash heap.

      Every day they are making a mockery of the Constitution and taking away more liberties. It started with the "Patriot Act' and keeps going.

      Whatever your opinion of Bradley Manning is, he does not deserve being held naked, on suicide watch and being harrassed every couple of hours so he is unable to sleep.

      The legal harrassment of Aaron Swartz just adds to the litany of crimes.

      What makes these people any different than the real criminals?

      Nothing, in fact they are WORSE!

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    thank you, Hollywood.

    Your greed and lawyers have killed more people than all the guns I've ever owned. Now we see why you and your actors support gun bans-you want to keep getting obscene profits for hiring people to play pretend and if that wasn't enough, making sure to "support" enough politicians to modify copyright laws so you can play games in court to break anyone who doesn't recognize your "ownership" of 100 year old public domain songs without worry of physical retaliation. Pretty easy to keep the rabble from disturbing you in your high rise office if sound deadening and distance keeps ineffective protests from your ears and armed "security" guards to keep them from confronting you personally.

  18. Highlander

    Word of the day - concurrent

    Ever heard that word all you panic merchants? Cumulative is not the same as concurrent. Even if the 13 counts against Swartz had a cumulative maximum penalty of 30 years, it's more than likely that due to mitigating factors (such as no financial loss, no violence and no personal gain) he'd have felt the light end of the sentencing spectrum. Then we come to the simple fact that the sentences would likely have been served concurrently as is common in cases with multiple counts.

    The truth here is that someone broke the law repeatedly and faced a period of time in a minimum security setting. The fact that he killed himself does not make the justice system wrong for prosecuting someone that broke the law. Just like his offenses, his decision to kill himself was his alone. We have no idea what advice his lawyers were giving. given the facts of the case I would hope that they would have been level headed and pointed out the likelihood of a light sentence if found guilty.

    Regardless, it seems somewhat asinine to blast the justice system is a criminal decides to kill them self rather than face the music. Just because we call the crime white collar and it obviously was not a particularly severe offense does not alter the fact that it was an offense.

    1. KBeee

      Re: Word of the day - concurrent

      What criminal is this? Did I miss the trial? Or do you mean the Accused.

  19. Local G
    Thumb Down

    Don't look now, Carmen, your self-serving is showing.

    "While at the same time, his defence counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge."

    Plea bargains are AGREEMENTS between defendants and prosecutors. If the prosecution does not agree to "a sentence of probation", the judge won't even look at it. What are you saying, Ortiz? That you would have agreed to probation?

    Don't you think Ortiz cleared this case with Holder in Washington? The DOJ were still smarting from letting O'Dwyer free and their appetite for tormenting victims had to be assuaged.

    As far as prosecuting the case after charges were dropped, victims of crimes are not competent to know when society and the law should continue a prosecution. The law permits a prosecutor to go forward even when the complainant withdraws. After all, what is the point of a 'nanny state' without a rule like that?

  20. Donald Becker
    WTF?

    "...his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation.Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge."

    Judges rarely make a critical review of a plea bargain agreement. The defense isn't allowed to recommend a sentence of probation in court -- the judge only wants a final agreement. Those statements are trying to shift responsibility. The prosecutor's office has the sole ability

    And, to address an earlier comment, a plea bargain all but precludes a later appeal.

    I can see how this was a non-choice. Accepting a felony conviction would destroy his credibility and effectiveness -- essentially his life-long goals and "career". He didn't have enough money for a strong defense in a trial where he faced a 50 year maximum sentence (30 years was "typical", not maximum).

    I've read that the room the laptop was found in wasn't regularly locked, and that a homeless man stored his possessions there. If that's the case, why was the prosecutor treating access as a felony-level offense?

  21. Kevin Fields

    So, Swartz isn't responsible at all for making the decision to end his life? I find this ideology disturbing.

    1. Local G
      Unhappy

      Who killed cock robin?

      It doesn't matter who is responsible for Aaron Swartz's death. What matters is that he is gone. And whatever innovative work he had left in him is gone too.

      How stately America looks when she cuts off her nose to spite her face.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Local G

          Re: Who killed cock robin?

          Death Before Dishonor: one man's excellent plea bargain and terms of probation, is another man's disgrace.

          It was Aaron's call, not ours.

    2. Intractable Potsherd

      Mr Fields ...

      ... have you ever had clinical depression? Do you know the feeling of utter worthlessness of the whole process of living that comes on every day? Do you know how difficult it is to keep going when their *aren't* malicious prosecutors banging on your door, and when you are getting all the support possible? I do, and so I can understand why Mr Schwartz killed himself.

      If you don't, I would respectfully ask you to KEEP YOUR STUPID MOUTH SHUT.

  22. DanceMan

    If you read some of the linked articles, they provide more perspective on this case.

    Firstly, Swartz apparently was broke and had no money to go to trial. So that was not an option.

    Second, the three cases Ortiz prosecuted against health care or drug companies, which involved potentially life-ending consequences, were resolved with only fines. No execs or anyone else were held responsible or threatened with prison.

    So charges of prosecutorial malice or irresponsibility are entirely appropriate, if not for Ortiz and Heymann, then certainly for the US (In)Justice system.

    I'm Canadian, so not expert, but many US Justice officials are elected, which leads to prosecution for political advantage. This has been seen over and over in cases where convictions of the innocent have taken place. Even after innocence has been well established, they have fought tooth and nail to keep the innocent jailed to enhance careers. One recent case required someone to plead guilty to a murder he did not commit in order to avoid years more of incarceration while fighting the case.

    Ortiz and Heymann should be dismissed. It would be a small start.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Upvoted on general principles. U. S. Attorneys are appointed by the President, with advice and consent of the Senate, and serve at the President's pleasure.

    2. Vic

      > Ortiz and Heymann should be dismissed.

      You appear to have mis-spelt "incarcerated"...

      Vic.

  23. Mikel

    Listen up kid, I'm only going to say this once

    We got you dead to rights on these 13 felonies here, and they're doozies. Look at -'em! Computer hacking, cracking and mayhem no jury or judge is gonna understand. Heck, the judge in your case doesn't even use a computer: he dictates his email. These are fine fat felonies that retail as much as four years each in the big time federal pound me prison full of hepatitis and AIDS and stabbings and beatings and whatnot. Now we'll probably only ask for half that if you put us to the trouble of working you through the court. Your mother will cry every day until she dies. Your family will burn every asset they have on fruitless appeals and die poor. They will be disgraced before the community.

    But I like you kid. You remind me a little of my nephew - he's a bright kid too. My docket is full and we could save some time here. Besides, I've got a quota to meet and I'm having a little bit of a dry spell, so you could help me get the ball rolling again. Tell ya what I'm gonna do. I'll let you have the whole baker's dozen 4-year bigtime felonies for the low, low price of only two weeks each. That's, what, total six months easy time in the jammies and slippers recreational jail for the slightly criminally inclined. What a steal! That's one cent on the dollar! You'll be out by summer. But you gotta act fast. I got a fence I'm talking with this afternoon I can probably get to turn state's evidence and then this is all off the table. So. Whaddya say? We in business?

  24. Tony Paulazzo
    Alien

    The Village

    There is little I can say to abate the anger', says Ortiz

    Kill yourself? (not advice, just an option, it probably would abate the anger).

    the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach

    Don't allow the prosecution to 'make deals' then this situation wouldn't arise, how about letting the court system reach its own conclusion of a persons guilt or innocence and effective punishment?

    Any person who serves their country in any political fashion should not be allowed to go work for any other industry at retirement, but kept in villages where they could garden / write books / take it easy for the rest of their natural - and maybe give them numbers instead of names so no 'evil' corporation can 'get' at them.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low-security setting.

    "While at the same time, his defence counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge."

    1) Easy to say AFTER the harm is done.

    2) So Carmen Ortiz is saying the defense counsel and the judge are to blame?

    "...did not warrant the severe punishments authorised by Congress..."

    1) Again this read very sour AFTER the "incident". As again Carmen Ortiz shuffles off her responsibility in this matter.

    2) So the Congress is supposedly responsible? And who is the "congress"? Which means the entire US government is wrong/corruptl/communist/evil.

    These white collar criminals pursue their own wellbeing over the life of one idealistic individual. An individual whom really fought for "freedom" (in this case freedom of information). The same "freedom" that's supposedly held up high by that same government.... tssk tssk tssk.

    Gee, Is that the "Land of the free"? Is that how they treat their free people?

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The "Land of the Free" does not exist any longer

    Defense lawyers DON"T GET TO RECOMMEND ANYTHING on sentencing.

    The specific penalty of law is already codified and in most cases, minimum sentences for each count would apply.

    In many cases, not even the Judge or Jury are able to modify the minimum sentencing requirements. This is a result of the way some laws are written, especially draconian ones having to do with so called copyright and hacking infractions. Swartz could have murdered several people and been subject to less sentencing.

    Ortiz deliberately and with malice aforethought "upped the ante" on Aaron Swartz (Thanks Mikel for providing a truly realistic interpretation of the plea bargain conversation) in order to put additional pressure on him to settle and take her guilty plea.

    Aaron Swartz knew he was not guilty of these supposed crimes so on principle he refused to take the plea bargain. He was also quite broke and could not afford to pay for further legal defense.

    When confronted with the reality that; the case against him could not be won, and the excessive pressure from the prosecution (I should say prostitution), his mental illness got the best of him and he committed suicide.

    If what Aaron Swartz did was considered to be criminal, what Ortiz did cannot be considered to be less than "Depraved Indifference resulting in Homicide".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The "Land of the Free" does not exist any longer

      Hopefully the family of Swartz will prosecute Ortiz then on "Depraved Indifference resulting in Homicide". So this bitch gets a cookie of her own!

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This must be the version ...

    where Portia wants a pound of flesh. And gets it!

  28. koolholio
    FAIL

    Just some facts and food for thought...

    Whilst we're all still alive and not in prison:

    The system clearly failed in its design to 'rehabilitate' offenders... Because thats what it was designed to do?

    It failed to identify a 'victim' to fund the charades... that was willing to take the case further...

    It failed to convict a supposed offender, unless after his suicide / death counts? ...

    It failed to add in any remorse for actions directly or indirectly of politicians or of those in power...

    I wonder why he wanted to 'break rules' in the first place?

This topic is closed for new posts.