When the government and the corporate world share a dread over something the rest of us value, and they act in concert against it, then very bad things can happen to self-governing republics.

Read more: Breaking Someone With The Law - Esquire http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Case_Of_Aaron_Swartz#ixzz2IDyAlRU7

I truly hope this signals an end to Ortiz's political career because she is clueless. Sending this kid to prison was just plain wrong. He should have paid a penalty but it should have been probation for a misdemeanor not prison for 13 felonies.

This is (again) all about the Buck. This bright, talented, politically astute young man had "stolen" some intellectual property of theirs and put it on the Internet. Swartz made no money from this. But MIT was PISSED. (They didn't want this to happen, they say) WTF did they think would happen. In the passive agressive way of the Acadamy, they told the Federal Prosecutor, then sat back wringing their hands, "We didn't know he'd be in that much trouble!!",  we don't want to prosecute anymore! MIT did a Pontious Pilot, knowing the Feds would pursue prosecution. The Feds put Swartz through a meat grinder, and he cracked. Plenty of Shame to go around here. All becuse MIT didn't make some money of work that most laypersons would find useless. All about the Buck. Can Ortiz, then let's look at which wuss at MIT started this travesty. He or She should have their feet held to the fire, just like they had done to Swartz.

Carmen you have blood on your hands and your husband is a first-rate d-nozzle.  Your career is OVAH!

A very sad commentary. Reminds me of the psychology experiment where the test takers give electric shocks because someone tells them to do so. More than one person lost their moral compass over a young genius doing an experiment with computers. Sounds like these "career prosecutors" have been at it too long.

A letter in today's Globe criticized Swartz for his inappropriate "statement" in taking his life.  To which I responded: The writer deeply misunderstands the suicide of Mr. Swartz.  It seems very clear that it was a despairing response to relentless prosecutorial overreach.  When the full power of the State is brought down on a young, idealistic man, fired by an extraordinary intellect and deeply held moral beliefs, this can be the result.  Mr. Swartz was not a mafia don who sees jail time as part of his lifestyle or job description.  He was not a Buddhist monk acting on a religious belief to call attention to injustice in 1960s Vietnam.  This was a brilliant but sensitive kid who was to be deprived of his freedom and cast into prison system inhabited by violent men and sexual predators.  For what?  Giving unauthorized access to scientific papers!  Prosecutors can become enamored of their own power and their own rectitude, losing sight of their own humanity.  Was this kid just a notch on some DA's career belt?  That is my assumption until shown otherwise.

Just following orders. Isn't that what the Nazi guards said too? You can't the blood off your hands that easily Ms. McBeth.

The shoe is on the other foot now, with the prosecutor being publicly hounded for her role in the death of a computer prodigy-turned-cyberactivist. He'd been in his early teens when he developed ground-breaking technology now widely used on the World Wide Web. As a young man, he fought for public access to Internet content. This case never should have been prosecuted the way it was. She ruined him financially, branded him as an accused felon, and wanted to send him to prison for what amounted to a protest involving free speech, NOT theft. How does she like it now -- her own public image in tatters far worse than anything she did to Aaron Swartz, with her under scrutiny in all the mainstream media around the country, from newspapers to network television. Will the President fire her? Probably not, despite tens of thousands of people signing a White House petition asking him to do so. But any ambitions she might have harbored to become U.S. Attorney General some day are ruined. Justice is served. Karma is a real you-know-what.

As I read Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1030), passed by Congress in 1984 and the National Information Infrastructure Act of 1996 as title II of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-294, 110 Stat. 3488. The US Attorney could have charged him with Computer Trespass, and got a clear conviction. Most good prosecutor after reading the law will then evaluate the case will bring a charge that they are certain will result in a conviction. To overcharge could be deemed as prosecutorial over reach. What did Aaron Swartz really do? In protest, he spoofed a MAC address and was able to download academic research documents that he and others feel should be available to the public at no charge, why? Because the research that produced those documents were pay for by taxpayers’ dollars. Did he sell the documents for money? No, he made them available to anyone who needed then for free. That being said, is it fair to blame the US Attorney for his death? This young man was already on the emotional edge and this case pushed him over that edge that probably exsisted throughout his young life. She represented her client with zeal she prosecuted Aaron Swartz to the full extent of the law and that was her political mistake. Unfortunately, with a 38,000 signature petition delivered to the White House yesterday her opposition is more powerful than she could have ever imagined. She may stay on as US Attorney but whatever political aspirations she might have had are gone.

How is it that this account of this Obama administration fiasco does not mention that Ortiz and/or her U.S. Attorney office staff reportedly dropped the charges that Swartz faced. . . after his suicide became a public issue? Ortiz was "traveling" and thus hampered in getting this self-serving statement out until 1045 p.m. Wednesday. . . Why didn't she have her devoted hubby write it? 38,000 people want this woman dumped . . . what a great idea. Imagine what she'd be like as a governor . . .

Another case of unjust government overreach. With tens of thousands laws on the books and hundreds more added every year they can make anyone a criminal if they feel like it, and suggest 50 year sentence for Swartz's political activism is part of further attack on freedom in this country.

I am glad a large number of people agree that Ortiz made a bad move with her bullying in this case and hope that people's memory won't be too short to forget this when she tries to take a higher office position to further stamp on citizens with disproportional government responses.

So reminiscent of Les Miz (or Les Mis in the film version spelling). Inspector Javert (aka US Atty Ortiz) chases after Jean Valjean (aka Swartz) who was branded a criminal for stealing a loaf of bread for his sister's starving family. No real sense of Justice or proportion.

What Swartz did was wrong, but her pursuit of the case seemed disproportionate with the crime.

Ortiz is SO candid in her statement that she places any blame at the feet of a sentencing judge.

Yeah, this is just like Les Miserables.  Ms. Ortiz and her brainiac husband probably even saw the film version, each welling up with tears at the appropriate places.  And their combined compassion or empathy or insight into what has been done to the Swartz family is, exactly, ZERO.  pathetic.

Don't anybody worry. Ortiz won't be running for governor. This was a serious judgment error that will follow her for a number of years. She might not get fired as district attorney, but she's at a dead end right now.

Maybe a few years from now people will have forgotten, or it won't seem important when an opponent brings it up. Of course, she hasn't admitted any faulty judgment so we could see more of it in the future. I respect people more when they admit that they've made a mistake.