Attorney General: Aaron Swartz Case Was a ‘Good Use of Prosecutorial Discretion’

I know I'll be pilloried for saying this here, but I'm not sure it wasn't. If one doesn't come at it from the stance of an anti-government idealogue (and if one understands the difference between statutory maximums and threats) this case is more complex than it's given credit for.<p>It's quite possible Ortiz was overzealous. It's quite possible (in fact to some extent almost certain) that the system is broken and defines computer crimes poorly, and Ortiz was doing her job well in a very tough spot. It's possible we're better off with laws aimed to stop computer fraud, and that prosecuting those who commit it (even if they happen to be people we generally like) is a necessity in the 21st century.<p>At the end of the day we have to remember, we need laws to prevent computer fraud, hacking, etc. Those laws will, almost by necessity, be written and enforced by non-programmers.<p>Which is not to say Aaron deserved 17 felony charges. But it's overly simple to vilify Ortiz or the AG's office.

This is the same guy who thinks it's ok to assassinate US citizens with drones without trial.<p>Despicable.

I'm genuinely curious what the Obama Administration sees in Holder. He brings no gravitas nor respect to the position; rather his role seems to be to deflect blame from Obama for his unconstitutional and generally shit-headed decisions.

This is the same attorney general who refuses to disclose the legal reasoning behind the presumption that the president is entitled to kill American Citizens at home or abroad without due process of law.<p>Also the same attorney general who has so far only prosecuted bit players in the nationwide mortgage document fraud without even bringing charges against executives whose name is on memos ordering the fraudulent practice.<p>If you're wondering why justice in this country appears to be available only to those who can afford it... He is the prime mechanism of failure.

A pretty clear case where the legal system and the people who run it are left behind the times (and try to keep the times back with them). Changing your MAC address, for instance, is no worse a threat to society than wearing a hoodie in public, and threats of 35 year sentences are usually reserved for cases such as murder or rape. But because hacking is such a novel kind of crime that, if it spreads, will necessitate vast changes in the expertise and structure of the law enforcement system, the powers that be feel a need to nip it in the bud with excessive, well publicized punishments and threats.

The video of Eric Holder is simultaneously baffling and revealing. The USDOJ really thinks it did a good job. It's unbelievable. Holder's metric of success is apparently (in this case) nothing but how little time Aaron could have spent in jail. No other considerations seem to matter.<p>I'm not sure how people so ignorant and blind wind up in positions of authority, but it scares me. Even scarier is the fact that I find myself agreeing with the Republican Senator from Texas who is likely only pressing the point with Holder to embarrass the Obama administration.<p>This microcosm encapsulates so well government doing all of the wrong things for all of the wrong reasons. How did it come to this?

It's time to get beyond the shock and outrage at the stone-walling occurring, now, at every level of government, and take a good hard look at what's motivating Holder. We are asking him to empathize with us - the least we can do is empathize with him.<p>First things first: Swartz is small potatoes. Holder deals with a lot of things, not the least of which is fielding questions about the legality of drone strikes on US soil [1], or writing memos about Gitmo or torture [2]. The handling or mis-handling of a single case is nothing to Eric Holder, especially since his boss is not up for reelection.<p>Second thing: the default position for any government leader is to back up your people. It's easier that way. If everyone in government backs up their people, coupled with unapologetic denials of wrong-doing, you have a much more comfortable government for one and all - at least between elections. But hey, 4 years of total autonomy is far better than suffering constant public scrutiny and having to react to it. This is even more powerful if you have the judiciary on your side and, since you're all on the same team, that's more likely than not.<p>In summary, Eric Holder doesn't care about this case, and has assumed the default position of someone in his station: deny-everything. It would have been quite remarkable, in hindsight, for him to have done anything else.<p>Clearly this is not a good outcome: we want an Attorney General who shares our sensibilities, and in this case, we wanted someone in that role who perceives the fact that the federal prosecutor overstepped their bounds and drove a sensitive soul into oblivion for actions which caused no-one any harm. We want someone who understands that <i>merely to be prosecuted</i> is a severe punishment in time and treasure. We want someone who understands the difference between someone who breaks the law out of a heartfelt spirit of doing the right thing, and someone who breaks the law out of malicious, selfish intent.<p>Sadly, I can think of no other way to address this problem than to keep this in mind for the next election.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/05/173572444/president-could-in-theory-order-drone-strike-inside-u-s-holder-says" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/05/173572444/pre...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link?CMP=twt_gu" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-t...</a><p>EDIT: P.S. I really like looking at inexplicable/horrible things like a software bug. Rather than indulge in pointless, impotent anger, treat the anger as a signal that your understanding of the system is flawed, and think through the forces at work. It's hard to get in the head of an insider, especially right after they pissed you off - but chances are they didn't <i>want</i> to piss you off. They didn't care about you at all.<p>Then, when your cogent analysis is through and you understand the system and how it can be fixed, you turn your anger back on a little and RIP THAT SHIT APART AND FIX IT.

of course he also believes in using drones to hunt and kill US Citizens, whether they are within our without our borders. A bad person can do terrible damage, if left to run free (speaking about the AG here).

So nobody argues that scientific papers should be free for everyone to use?

3 months sounds like a reasonable deal to offer.