US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz, already under fire after the suicide of a prominent computer hacker that her office was prosecuting, came under more criticism Tuesday when her husband rushed to her defense on Twitter with postings critical of the 26-year-old man’s family.
In one tweet posted late Monday, on the eve of Aaron Swartz’s funeral, Thomas J. Dolan, an IBM executive who married Ortiz in July 2011, wrote: “Truly incredible that in their own son’s obit they blame others for his death and make no mention of the 6-month offer.”
Comments
"I don’t know what world Carmen Ortiz and her husband are living in, but they are not living in our world, [Summers] said."
They live in a world where 'computer crime' is still crime, where 'intellectual property' is still property, where taking something from someone else, even if you just give it away, is still stealing, and where, if you oppose a practice you work with other like minded people to change the law.
None of us would choose to live in world where everyone is able to decide for themselves what is legal and then proceed to act as they wish, and this case was not aimed at an individual, it was aimed at a lager community of skilled hackers who envision themselves above mere laws, because their personal sense of integrity and entitlement allows them to transcend law. It is that pervaisive attitude that drove the prosecution.
I mourn the needless loss of any life, but sadly, in what he perhaps saw as a final act of transcendence, or perhaps not, this young man made a choice to end his.
sure sounds like an academic with a dog in this fight. 'geolovely' you know no more than any others of the public and while Ortiz prepares her brief to justify her acts and a family still mourns their son perhaps you could just shut up? instead, you further smear Swartz and 'hackers' ... you have absolutely NO idea of what motivated the suicide but that doesnt stop you from coming up with a reason.
None of us would choose to live in a world where everyone is able to decide for themselves what is a fact. Except you and your fellow travellers posting later who just flap those gums, work those keyboards and issue ad hoc judgments regardless. No, you dont mourn. You mock.
The issue was not whether Swartz had committed a crime. Neither he nor his attorneys, from what I can tell, denied that. The issue was that US Attorney, using a vaguely written law from over twenty years ago, was insisting on a felony conviction with jail time when Swartz did not profit from his actions, and the organization that was the target did not view itself as materially harmed. None of us would choose to live in a world where punishments were disproportionate to the crimes committed, but Aaron Swartz didn't have that choice either.
Tom Dolan is out of line. Carmen Ortiz needs to reign in her hubby!
What pathetically poor judgement on the part of Ortiz and Dolan. An exceedingly bad example of how power and privilege provide a poor basis for understanding, thoughtfulness, and appropriateness. It is well past time to remove her from her position - and her husband to keep his insensitive stupidity to himself.
i have to agree with GEOLOVELY. what can of world would this be if we all decidede what was "legal" and what wasnt? swartz broke the law & was going to have topay the consequencecs. it was his choice to committ suicide no one elsesl.
He broke no law.
This comment has been removed.
The family started it by laying blame on prosecutors in the obituary. They shouldn't be surprised that the prosecutor's husband shot back. Also, Swartz was not charged with a "victimless crime". The stealing of intellectual property is still stealing. He seems to have been a brilliant young man with a few loose screws. Very sad.
He stole nothing. He had a legal right to access. What he did was get more stuff than anyone had planned on him getting, There was no theft in the case at all.
This comment has been removed.
The last time people decided on their own what was legal or not, with other people's property, was Wikileaks. Sorry but as much as I understand what Swartz was trying to do he knew that articles on JSTOR are not all available for free, it was not just "trespassing" and the "free-intellectual property rights crowd" often lives in a world of their own, they could do with coming down to live with the rest of us as well. Sad to see this man's death turned into political hash.
Wikileaks is not a fair comparison. Swartz had proper legal access to the material he downloaded, and it did not appear to be classified or in any other way sensitive.
This comment has been removed.
I think the analysis that the crime was trespassing is an apt one. Cybercrime is truly a new frontier and the prosecutors offices should really try to keep the particular crime in perspective. The taxpayers paid for research and MIT was selling the articles based upon the taxpayer funded research. Mr. Schwartz accessed the journal articles - he didn't sell them he was intending to grant free access. Yes, it was a crime but did he really deserve to go to prison for 6 months? I'll bet the people who think he should have thanked his lucky stars and taken the six months have never set foot in a correctional facility. And if it's true that Attorney Good told the prosecutors that Schwartz was suicidal then I think they do share some blame, particularly since they were working out a deal with Marty Weinberg that didn't include jail time.
One would think/hope the Feds could think so logically/charitably re:a pplying ill suited laws to modern day mores....but no, they had to go out and destroy a genius Wunderkind whose only goal in life was to improve society (which threatened the federal government, right?). Is that what this case was really about: neutering Swartz so his activism could not threaten the powers that be? Me thinks so.
"...they had to go out and destroy a genius Wunderkind..."
Do not ignore the fact that Mr. Swartz destroyed himself, and no one knows the real reasons why. Sad.
Both groups of players in this piece have been pulled in by the sensationalist side of reporting. Mr. Swartz suffered from depression according to accounts. The extent and seriousness is frankly none of our business. Without the full facts of his acquiring of private data there should be no rush to judgment as to his innocence or not. Mr. Dolan on the other hand had a brain freeze on the dangers of using public media and did not learn the lessons of a myriad of prominent figures displaying their inner thoughts or warts for all to see. Our culture still has to work out the acceptable norms of laying out dirty linen for everyone to see. Anytime something is dragged into plain view it becomes fair game for comment. The real problem here, namely suicide, an act against oneself, with its ugly twin violence against others is inadequately addressed by present knowledge and resources.
WRONG OETKB_ the "extent & seriousness" of the individual's action are weighted with the,"extent & seriousness" of the legal charges brought against the individual. Thus the determination of the penalty. If there is one to be considered, and in this case the penalty was seen by very many people to out-weight the seriousness of the action.
What was the action (crime)? What was the threatened penalty (legal charges)?
We know if a person pleads,"guilty" the charges can reappear at any time in the future.
Hence, an individual is foolish to ever plead,"guilty," due to fear of future consequences. In other words the so-called 6 month offer, could very well have been a ploy.
"We know if a person pleads,"guilty" the charges can reappear at any time in the future."
Huh? We do? From no less an 'authority' than Wikipedia (but still correct): "Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction." That includes guilty pleas.
oh, I get it. The US Department of Justice is above criticism. 'dehumanist' indeed. and 'westernciv2' with a picture of an imperialist par excellence ... yup, it is just wonderful for the husband of a federal prosecutor to attack the family of a suicide. after all, he was accused of breaking laws, so it is fine that the husband attacks the family and the US Attorney hides.
and 'westernciv2' is obviously an expert on psychiatry. as much as on the false faced life of Churchill ... he, by the way, wanted to bomb the Irish and got his wish against other colonials as well as keeping his boot on the throat of Indians for decades. if you cant even see the humanity of Mr. Swartz, no surprise that the Rights of Property loom so large as to cover Carmen Ortiz' s rank incompetence if not brutality.
the family was the one who made the first comments about Ortiz in the obituary. Her husband responded. Was it crass, possibly. But what everyone is forgetting here, is that this young man apparently had a history of depression. His own lawyer said he was aware and made the prosecuters aware that the young man was suicidal. Perhaps if someone had gotten the young man some sort of mental health help he may have needed, he may not have killed himself. but for people to say 'he was killed by the government' is ridiculous. Suicide is something someone does to THEMSELVES. Let's not make his death out to be any more than it was--a suicide, not a murder.
Another reason Eric Holder should go. It's hard to believe he wasn't involved in the OK to proceed with a case dealing with cyber security.
It was misleading of the family to say that Mr. Swartz was facing "potentially over 30 years in prison" when the actual plea offer was 4 to 6 months. Also - if Mr. Swartz had been successful in distributing JSTOR's current collection of journal articles, this might have hurt JSTOR's ability to function since the journal publishers might not trust JSTOR to keep their future material safe. I use JSTOR as an individual user, unaffiliated with an institution. JSTOR is a non-profit, charges me nothing to be a user, supplies an excellent search engine with fully readable abstracts, lets me read 5 free articles every 2 weeks, stores citations of things I might come back to, and allows easy purchase of important references for (in my experience) $10 to $35. I like and depend on JSTOR. It seems to me that the Government was acting to protect JSTOR when it prosecuted Mr. Swartz. JSTOR and its users should not be ruled by Mr. Swartz’s views alone, no matter how smart or unhappy he was.
You know nothing if you think JSTOR keeps publishers' materials "safe" and if you think JSTOR wanted this prosecution. 1) JSTOR is an aggregator and re-seller. Much of what they sell access to is already out of copyright, and should be availble without cost to everyone. In other words, it's old stuff. 2) JSTOR dropped all charges. 3) The "free" JSTOR articles policy is only a few weeks old.
He was charged with hacker crimes. Additionally, JSTOR charges for its service, not for content. They license with the journals they digitize, which means they sign a contract agreement with terms and policies that must be adhered to. And what does copyright have to do with anything? Entirely irrelevant.
The husband was completely out of line here. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Swartz family accusations that the prosecutor drove Aaron to his death, the family has every right to express that belief. And express it they did at a time when the family is in agony. Would the idiot husband dared say that to the face of Swartz' father ? I think not. So he ought not to have Tweeted it either. All he accomplished was making his wife the prosecutor look even worse than she already does.
This comment has been removed.
Mr. Dolan has no business making any comments, in any forum, about any issue involving his wife's position as US Attorney or that of her office. Besides, who cares what he thinks?
Adults should stay off social media. It's ridiculous and juvenile.
Swartz, an activist, knowingly committed a crime. All activist know that there is a chance they will punished for their activities and protest. While I admit I do not know all of the details, I do believe that pinning the suicide of this young man on the goverment is extreme. He was sick, and needed help, but that does not mean that he should be held to a different standard unless his crimes were a result of his sickness.
The start of this idiocy was the decision by Carmen Ortiz and her staff of political prosecutors to drop charges against Aaron Swartz - after the man committed suicide!!!!! It was a debatale point whether or not prison was a suitable option in view of the crime Swartz was accused of. The suicide almost certainly suggests some mental instability, a matter that should have been decided by professional mental health practitioners. But, to repeat, Ortiz' insulting decision to dump the charges of stealing J-STOR materials was absolutely insane. Especially to do it AFTER the man committed suicide!!! You can bet that President Obama will do nothing about this - after all this is Massachusetts, Obama's favorite state governed by his favorite Chicago political colleague. As for Thomas Dolan, there are people accusing him of being childish for using Twitter to 'tweet' his sentiments about remarks by bitter members of Swartz's family aimed at Ortiz. One has to wonder who the advisors are that Ortiz and her hubby are relying on in their dealing with this entire fiasco. The best bet for Ortiz is to resign her position and go out into some rural area of Missouri or Idaho, wherever IBM might have some sort of outlying office that can put her hubby to work.
Thankfully U.S.Attorney Ortiz upheld the law. Swartz reaction to the more than generous offer of guilty and six months is abnormal and surprising. Swartz, obviously, felt that He should have been held to a different standard, break the law and be unaccountable. His suicide and refusal of the government offer indicate His inability to admit wrong doing and deal with the consequences. U.S.Attorney Ortiz should continue to prosecute those who break the law and She should be pleased with Her Husband's support.
The prosecution was overreaching -- but the prosecutor did not kill Swartz -- period. And Thomas J. Dolan has as much right to comment on the case as anyone else does.
You're correct that Dolan has the right to comment. But Ortiz is a public official in the public arena, who is theoretically used to comment and criticism on her actions. Her husband, however, apparently is not used to that, since he doesn't live in the public arena. When he decided to comment, he put his foot in it, he commented badly, very badly, and now he IS in the public arena, the front page of the Globe, and he has to take the heat that can come with that. I'll bet his wife is furious at his lame attempt at being "Sir Galahad" to defend her name. And I'll bet his employer, IBM, is none too pleased, either.
I think she should resign!!!!!
Dear Mr. Dolan:
Since you have opened the door, please allow me to walk in.
In Mr. Swartz's case of which I know only what I read in the papers, you used the words, "truly incredible."
Let me take this opportunity to inform you about conduct out of the Boston United States Department of Justice and the Boston FBI office that is "truly incredible."
Despite 18 USC 4, which makes it mandatory to report official corruption and government crime, and FBI Director Mueller's high priority on public corruption, on two separate occasions in 2010, the US Marshals Service visited me at my place of employment at the Massachusetts trial court and told me to stop reporting verified official corruption and verified high crime in government to the US Attorney, her subordinate public corruption officer, Brian Kelly and to members of the federal bench or else.
The consequences for the perpetrators engaging in verified public corruption were quid pro quo promotions, jobs, bonuses and awards.
The consequences for refusing to engage in verified public corruption and verified criminal activity was a pattern of egregious retaliation that knew no bounds and culminated in a verified frame up. The "or else" resulted in someone at the Department of Justice placing me on a government "watch list."
While some say, "Adults should stay off social media. It's ridiculous and juvenile.", it's the only voice some have to express disappointment at a justice system that is out of control in some cases.
The US Marshals Service told me in an email that I could no longer contact the Boston US Attorney's office or the judges, but that I could go to the newspapers. Unfortunately, neither the Globe nor the Herald thought my firsthand knowledge and irrefragable evidence concerning government frame ups, promotion fixing, fraudulent promotional certificates, sexual harassment, rigged investigations, prosecutorial misconduct, well planned discrimination and numerous other violations was newsworthy.
Please take this opportunity to verify what I say by sending for my 30-page affidavit, Supervisory Special FBI Agent John T. Foley's letter dated March 28, 2005 and emails from Mr. Frank Dawson of the US Marshals Service.
Condolences to the Swartz family.
As to US Attorney Ortiz, based on special circumstances the statute of limitations is still open on my case. It would be appreciated if you would ask that she reconsider?
Thank you.
dougkinan@yahoo.com
Lay off the return key.
I understand the family being upset with the potential prosecution of their son. However, if a law was broken how can we expect the authorities not to prosecute the case. That is their job. The US atty has a responsibility to file charges when probable cause exists that a crime was committed. Further, we cannot blame prosecutors for acting within their authority when bad things happen to a potential suspect. I agree that the US atty's husband was out of line with his comments, but I do not believe she should resign.
Please Eastbrewster, 1940, Redglare, try to remember which persona you are responding as. If you review thw posts below carefully you'll note you carelessly lost track of who was responding to what, several times.