Prosecutors Gone Wild

[Lucky]

For some reason, the death of Aaron Swartz really bothers me. He hung himself. No one knows exactly what his reasons were, but surely the fact that he was facing 35 years in prison for stealing files from MIT was a factor. 35 years might seem like a long time to a 26 year old. I had never heard of him until yesterday, but such a brilliant mind gone so young is troubling. Why would the government seek such a harsh penalty?

Swarz's family sure believes that the prosecution was a factor in his death. They issued this statement: “Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy,” Mr. Swartz’s family and partner said in a statement. ”It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. attorney’s office and at M.I.T. contributed to his death.”

The issues involved here are complex. Read more on Aaron Swartz and file sharing legalistics: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/technology/aaron-swartz-a-data-crusader-and-now-a-cause.html?hp

And in California federal prosecutors are going against a man who started a medicinal marijuana business. He followed every state law to the T, yet he faces 15 years from a prosecutor named to the office by President Obama, Read that story to wonder what Obama is doing. It's really surprising that one argument the feds make is that the guy is not himself a user of medicinal marijuana. Apparently only sick people can help the sick in Obama's mind: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/14pot.html?hp&_r=0

We would have thought that with the election of a Democrat President that we would get more liberal judges and more liberal prosecutors. And by liberal, in this sense I mean more rational, not hard-charging guys who cannot think through the intricacies of an issue. Yet when Obama was re-elected, there were 42 federal judgeships open that he had not even nominated anyone to.

[Lucky]

Huffington Post takes a look at the law under which Swartz was prosecuted:

Before his apparent suicide Friday, Internet activist Aaron Swartz was facing trial for allegedly stealing millions of scholarly journal articles from a digital archive at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Now, in the wake of his death, some of his supporters are calling for changes to the controversial law under which he was charged, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. They say prosecutors have widely invoked the 1980s-era statute to bring harsh criminal penalties for relatively minor offenses.

In a tribute to Swartz on Sunday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes said: “You should know his death is a good reason to revisit the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the law under which he was prosecuted, since it is far too broad."

Timothy B. Lee, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, wrote Saturday on the blog Ars Technica: “We should pay tribute to Aaron's memory by reforming the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to prevent such disproportionate prosecutions from happening in the future."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/aaron-swartz-death-_n_2468879.html

[Guest hitoallusa]

A very smart and handsome young guy who has a bright future killed himself unfortunately. He could have stand the trial and got a minor sentence in my opinion.

I'm not sure why he hacked journals that people already have access to through public and university libraries???? You can ask a local librarian for a copy of any journal article and you can get it.

Of course he did something he should not do but I don't think he would have gotten the maximum sentence either. He could have gotten a minor sentence something like probation and community service at most... It's tragic that this happened.

As for the Act, I leave to the expert...

[citylaw1]

For some reason, the death of Aaron Swartz really bothers me. He hung himself. No one knows exactly what his reasons were, but surely the fact that he was facing 35 years in prison for stealing files from MIT was a factor. 35 years might seem like a long time to a 26 year old. I had never heard of him until yesterday, but such a brilliant mind gone so young is troubling. Why would the government seek such a harsh penalty?

Swarz's family sure believes that the prosecution was a factor in his death. They issued this statement: “Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy,” Mr. Swartz’s family and partner said in a statement. ”It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. attorney’s office and at M.I.T. contributed to his death.”

The issues involved here are complex. Read more on Aaron Swartz and file sharing legalistics: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/technology/aaron-swartz-a-data-crusader-and-now-a-cause.html?hp

And in California federal prosecutors are going against a man who started a medicinal marijuana business. He followed every state law to the T, yet he faces 15 years from a prosecutor named to the office by President Obama, Read that story to wonder what Obama is doing. It's really surprising that one argument the feds make is that the guy is not himself a user of medicinal marijuana. Apparently only sick people can help the sick in Obama's mind: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/14pot.html?hp&_r=0

We would have thought that with the election of a Democrat President that we would get more liberal judges and more liberal prosecutors. And by liberal, in this sense I mean more rational, not hard-charging guys who cannot think through the intricacies of an issue. Yet when Obama was re-elected, there were 42 federal judgeships open that he had not even nominated anyone to.

Prosecutors enjoy great discretion where these broadly defined laws are concerned. Many prosecutors use cases like this simply to make a name for themselves. While charges were warranted, clearly the spirit of this law was not respected.

This is a horrible outcome, and I hope that the prosecutor suffers from what was clearly a miscarriage of justice.

[lookin]

This is a horrible outcome, and I hope that the prosecutor suffers from what was clearly a miscarriage of justice.

And he, in turn, is pointing the finger back to the U. S. Attorney's office in Boston. May be he sees himself as the hired gun, with the U. S. Attorney setting policy. Though I expect it's the back room money-boys who are really setting policy.

Reached at home, the prosecutor, Stephen Heymann, referred all questions to the spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston, Christina Dilorio-Sterling. She did not immediately respond to an email and phone message seeking comment.

. . .

As of Wednesday, the government took the position that any guilty plea by Swartz must include guilty pleas for all 13 charges and the possibility of jail time, Peters said. Otherwise the government would take the case to trial and seek a sentence of at least seven years.

. . .

JSTOR, one alleged victim, agreed with Peters that those terms were excessive, Peters said. JSTOR came over to Swartz's side after "he gave the stuff back to JSTOR, paid them to compensate for any inconveniences and apologized," Peters said.

. . .

For Swartz's family, the matter was clearer-cut, said Peters, his lawyer.

"Our consistent response was, this case should be resolved in a way that doesn't destroy Aaron's life and takes into account who he really is, and what he was doing."

[citylaw1]

A very smart and handsome young guy who has a bright future killed himself unfortunately. He could have stand the trial and got a minor sentence in my opinion.

I'm not sure why he hacked journals that people already have access to through public and university libraries???? You can ask a local librarian for a copy of any journal article and you can get it.

Of course he did something he should not do but I don't think he would have gotten the maximum sentence either. He could have gotten a minor sentence something like probation and community service at most... It's tragic that this happened.

As for the Act, I leave to the expert...

1. Swartz was calling attention to copyright issues, and their interference with free access to digitized scientific and cultural heritage. This was part of the Open Access Movement. Swartz explains the fight better than I ever could here: http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt

2. Swartz was facing a fight with federal prosecutors. Make no mistake, a case like this would receive nationwide notoriety, and , therefore, the full army associated with any government agency. The legal fees alone would have exceeded $200,000 I bet; this figure would buy you 625 hours in court - 15 weeks.

3. Facing 35 years and millions in fines is a lot for anyone to handle. Sure, he probably would have received leniency, but the prosecutor made statements equating his crime to "using a crowbar to break in and steal someone’s money under the mattress." Would you expect leniency under these circumstances?

4. Assuming the judge was lenient, how lenient can one be? Swartz was facing 35 years and millions in fines. What's lenient - $100,000 in fines and 18 months in prison? So, Swartz would be a convicted felon, probably bankrupted his family, and mortgaged his future. This is overwhelming for anyone.

5. Theft, of any kind, should be judged by it's severity and affect on society. This law allows punishments that exceed armed bank robbery.

[citylaw1]

. . .

For Swartz's family, the matter was clearer-cut, said Peters, his lawyer.

"Our consistent response was, this case should be resolved in a way that doesn't destroy Aaron's life and takes into account who he really is, and what he was doing."

This pretty much wraps up my thoughts.

[citylaw1]

"As of Wednesday, the government took the position that any guilty plea by Swartz must include guilty pleas for all 13 charges and the possibility of jail time, Peters said. Otherwise the government would take the case to trial and seek a sentence of at least seven years."

Liar loans, credit default swaps, Wall Street coverups - Where were the prosecutors then?

[Lucky]

citylaw makes a good point that so much is either overlooked by federal prosecutors or is treated much lighter than the Swarz was getting. The banks made out like bandits when they were shown to have committed fraud on foreclosures. They actually hurt people.

The oil companies have also benefited from lax prosecution. They were proven to have made billions, yes, billions, in illegal profits, but paid fines in the millions. The Energy Department made a big deal out of the huge fines the oil companies were paying, but neglected to tell the public that it was a small price to pay for all the profit they made.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Getting national attention might have helped him and he could have achieved more if he had stayed alive. He might have gotten interviews from 60 minutes, CNN and talk shows that could helped him a lot.

Anyways, there were other ways for him to deal with the issue... I wish he took a different path...

[Lucky]

But he didn't.

[Lucky]

A columnist for the SF Chronicle says that the prosecutor's crime was worse than the one alleged to have been committed by Aaron Swarz: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Prosecutors-crime-greater-than-Swartz-s-4193962.php

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well I disagree with the columnist. He has already received a second chance according to the article. And prosecutors was simply doing his job. What I don't get is why he didnt face the trial? Unfortunately, rule of law needs to be held no matter what. I hope the Act will be revised but that's all I can say for the deceased. If he has started a fight and did something illegal then he should keep on fighting.

[lookin]

If he has started a fight and did something illegal then he should keep on fighting.

I guess those runaway slaves should have stayed and faced the music too.

Perhaps you have the resources to take on the Feds over a wrongheaded law, but most of us don't. Swartz was on his way either to jail or to financial catastrophe and very likely both. For the U. S. Attorney and the federal prosecutor, it was just another day at the office.

A fair fight is one thing, but this was something else again.

[Lucky]

hitoallusa continues to remind me that the values we cherish as our American freedoms are easily disposed of when those who don't value those freedoms take power.

[Guest hitoallusa]

I am not being unsympathetic to his death. It's tragic. But it's him who started it by hacking and stealing. And it was his second time. The first time it happened there was no charge and he got a second chance. Why are we forgetting those prosecutors who gave him a second chance? Not all prosecutors are bad and we didn't hear from the prosecutors either.

[caeron]

Well I disagree with the columnist. He has already received a second chance according to the article. And prosecutors was simply doing his job. What I don't get is why he didnt face the trial? Unfortunately, rule of law needs to be held no matter what. I hope the Act will be revised but that's all I can say for the deceased. If he has started a fight and did something illegal then he should keep on fighting.

No, they weren't just 'doing their jobs'. Prosecutors have huge discretion about what charges to file and what to do. That they choose to attempt to crucify this young man was uncalled for, and their decision alone to do.

[lookin]

But it's him who started it by hacking and stealing. And it was his second time. The first time it happened there was no charge and he got a second chance.

To continue my admittedly imperfect analogy from earlier, if a runaway slave had returned and, instead of being beaten within an inch of his life, he was merely returned to the fields with a slap on the wrist, do you think he should have thanked his lucky stars and continued working till the day he died?

This is not a straightforward case of right against wrong and Swartz did have mental health issues to contend with, and the federal prosecutor was no doubt a good son and took in many rescue animals, but the fact remains that fighting an unjust law is often no longer a case of standing in front of a judge and making a truthful and effective argument.

As a result of Swartz's tragic action, this law and, hopefully, others like it may now get the public scrutiny it should have had before it was put on the books.

Or it may not. The media and the public may decide the story has no legs, and continue to allow knowledge that should be in the public domain to remain locked behind firewalls, available only to folks with the cash to get at it.

This is not the first time someone has sacrificed his or her life for a principle, or because of plain old exhaustion and, sadly, I expect it won't be the last.

[Guest hitoallusa]

But to protect people from this kind of malpractice by prosecutors and judges, people serve as juries. He could have taken his case in front of the jury and argue his case. At least he was not born in a country where a judge takes bribes and deliver verdict by himself without the jury. I wish he had known that. But it's too late.

No, they weren't just 'doing their jobs'. Prosecutors have huge discretion about what charges to file and what to do. That they choose to attempt to crucify this young man was uncalled for, and their decision alone to do.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Carmen's response. I'm not so sure what to make of the statement. I hope Aaron stayed alive and fought back. I know several people at work who will do anything to get their promotion or earn more money. It's sad but that's the reality. But want to believe that is not the case here. If so, then it's tragic and our future is not so bright..

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/01/17/us-attorney-statement-on-the-prosecution-of-aaron-swartz/tab/comments/

[BiBottomBoy]

It looks to me like MIT is the honestly responsible party.

According to the International Herald Tribune (which doesn't have a website so I can't link to it) MIT was convinced it was the chinese government who was hacking them and that's why they called the feds, when, really, it was just a dude who plugged in through an unlocked closet.

[citylaw1]

But to protect people from this kind of malpractice by prosecutors and judges, people serve as juries. He could have taken his case in front of the jury and argue his case. At least he was not born in a country where a judge takes bribes and deliver verdict by himself without the jury. I wish he had known that. But it's too late.

To take this to a jury would cost he and his family at least $250,000. Juries are admonished to follow the law as it is applied. Depending on the charges and judge's instructions, the jury may well be forced to find guilt as defined by the charges. Lesser charges are often not included as an option.

[Lucky]

It looks to me like MIT is the honestly responsible party.

According to the International Herald Tribune (which doesn't have a website so I can't link to it) MIT was convinced it was the chinese government who was hacking them and that's why they called the feds, when, really, it was just a dude who plugged in through an unlocked closet.

As much as I have read about this case, I had not seen that story? So much is being said after the fact. Even when the MIT president was explaining his shock and sadness at the suicide he didn't make that point. The university’s president, L. Rafael Reif, said last week, “It pains me to think that M.I.T. played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy.”

I have since tried to verify your claim, and I cannot. Finding activity from China is not unusual. But it doesn't mean that they are behind the theft. In fact, the Chinese activity found here was brief- not enough to finger them as the culprits.