[conspire] Post Mortum legal explosion

[Paul Zander]

3 charged in malware scheme targeting bank accounts
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57565535-83/3-charged-in-malware-scheme-targeting-bank-accounts/

The trio faces up to 60 to 95 years in prison if convicted of the charges. 



--- On Wed, 1/16/13, Deirdre Saoirse Moen <deirdre at deirdre.net> wrote:

From: Deirdre Saoirse Moen <deirdre at deirdre.net>
Subject: Re: [conspire] Post Mortum legal explosion
To: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
Cc: "conspire at linuxmafia.com" <conspire at linuxmafia.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 6:01 PM

IMHO, the more likely legal cause of action might be a wrongful death suit against MIT for releasing records without a court order, leading to all the subsequent fallout.

Deirdre

On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):
> 
>> Look at this fall out
>> http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
>> 
>> The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz (Part 1: The Law)
>> Orin Kerr ??? January 14, 2013 2:50 am
> 
> Unlike most of us, Orin Kerr has the right legal qualifications to 
> assess the question of prosecutorial overreach -- whether US District
> Attorney Carmen Ortiz warped Federal statutes in deciding to seek a
> felony conviction under wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorised access,
> and computer damage laws -- and also, a separate question, whether she
> improperly exercised discretion through being overly aggressive or
> lacking in a sense of proportion in charging Swartz the way she did.
> 
> On the first question, Kerr concludes reasonably and with clear
> justification that at least three of the four groups of charges were a
> fair application of those laws as written and commonly applied -- and
> the fourth is arguable depending on what evidence emerged in the court
> case (that now no longer exists).
> 
> It's reasonable to wish the scientific publications republished by JSTOR
> were free culture under, say, a Creative Commons licence (and I wish
> they would), but they are not.[1]  It's reasonable to wish that some
> overly harsh provisions of the USA's wire fraud, computer fraud,
> unauthorised access, and computer damage statutes had been removed by
> amendment or voided by a judge -- but they were not.
> 
> So: Do the apparent facts support a likely guilty verdict on those
> charge?  Hell yes.  Should the law and the ownership/licensing of
> scientific research be reformed as a matter of public policy?  In my
> opinion, hell yes.  But those are distinct questions.
> 
> 
> As Kerr points out, the second question (sense of proportion and
> excessive aggressiveness) is a matter of 'discretion and judgement',
> that DOJ always has the option to charge vs. either 'fuggetaboutit'
> (dismissal) or arranging a plea bargain.  Kerr promises a part II to
> give his opinion.  (Prosecutors had offered Swartz guilty pleas with
> about six months of prison time, or slightly less.  He had not been
> willing to agree, rejecting the felony classification.)
> 
> Is a Federal prosecution on multiple felony charges awesomely
> intimidating, incredibly expensive to defend, and likely to eat your
> life for some years?  Sure.  Was Swartz a known suicide risk for at
> least five years?  Yes.
> 
> 
> Prof. Lessig points out that JSTOR had dropped its complaint, but MIT,
> to its eternal ignominy, had not bothered to move fast enough to do so.
> Strictly speaking, a criminal prosecution doesn't necessarily get
> cancelled just because a victim suddenly says 'never mind' -- but DA
> Carmen Ortiz more than likely would have dropped the case if MIT had
> gotten off their fat asses and done the right thing.
> 
> 
> Political angles include speculation that the US District Attorney's
> office wanted to 'make an example of' Swartz partly out of frustration
> in the entirely separate Manning and Assange matters.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I look forward to Kerr's opinion on question #2, but meanwhile I
> would be hesitant to blame Ortiz and the US District Attorney's
> office for enforcing the laws, even laws that suck rocks and are overdue
> for reform.  E.g., this:
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire

_______________________________________________
conspire mailing list
conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire