The Accidental Betrayal of Aaron Swartz 409
theodp writes "The anarchist dictum when it comes to grand juries, explains Salon's Natasha Lennard, is a simple one: 'No one talks, everyone walks.' It's a lesson journalist Quinn Norton tragically learned only after federal prosecutors got her to inadvertently help incriminate Aaron Swartz, her dearest friend and then-lover. Convinced she knew nothing that could be used against Swartz, Norton at first cooperated with the prosecutors. But prosecutors are pro fishermen — they cast wide nets. And in a moment Norton describes as 'profoundly foolish,' she told the grand jury that Swartz had co-authored a blog post advocating for open data (the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto), which prosecutors latched onto and spun into evidence that the technologist had 'malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.' Norton sadly writes, 'It is important the people know that the prosecutors manipulated me and used my love against Aaron without me understanding what they were doing. This is their normal. They would do this to anyone. We should understand that any alleged crime can become life-ruining if it catches their eyes.' Consider yourself forewarned."
When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
Say absolutely nothing. Every single work spoken to them will come from your lawyers mouth.
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Funny)
Lots. The most honest of dudes will answer "Do I look fat in this?" incorrectly.
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:4, Funny)
Lots. The most honest of dudes will answer "Do I look fat in this?" incorrectly.
For those of you who don't know, the one and only, correct answer to the above question please be advised:
Re: (Score:3)
There is one other correct answer:
"Do I look stupid?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My wife knows that if she ever asks me that question I will answer yes on pure principle. So she doesn't ask me
Slashdot - A Place to talk about your IRC girlfriends and Real-doll relationships...
Re:Naivete kills !! (Score:5, Informative)
"Oh, c'mon, don't give us that !!!"
MOST people don't know enough to keep their mouths shut. This is simply a fact. They also expect other people to be reasonable, and are amazed when other people aren't reasonable. Example from TFA:
"It was beyond my understanding that these people could pick through his life, threaten his friends, tear through our digital history together, raid his house, surveil him, and never actually read his blog."
I bet you 90% of the people out there would feel the same. And have no clue what damage opening their mouths, even a little bit, can cause.
I bet even you would learn a few things by watching this video: Don't Talk To Police [youtube.com] which is a talk given by a defense attorney and a detective.
Re: (Score:3)
You make it sound very easy not to say anything to the police or the prosecutor. For most people, it's very stressful and just sitting there on the stand in a courtroom with every staring at you. It's extraordinarily coercive, and that's before they go and really fuck with you by threatening you with bullshit such as "obstructing justice".
Re: (Score:3)
"You make it sound very easy not to say anything to the police or the prosecutor."
If so, that was not my intent. Rather, I would like to warn everybody about it precisely because it isn't easy.
And just about the ONLY time you can get in REAL legal trouble for keeping your mouth shut is in front of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury "system" we currently have does not represent justice and should have been abolished long ago. This has been a popular issue since the Perry Mason days.
Re:Naivete kills !! (Score:5, Informative)
Which is why you do need a lawyer sitting on your shoulder like Jabba's little freak-monkey, cackling "My client has no recollection of those events. My client cannot speak to another's state of mind."
Re:Naivete kills !! (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading her story, all I can say is that she and Swartz made the same mistake: being stupid enough to believe that they were smart enough to outwit a determined adversary with almost unlimited resources.
Prisons are full of people with that attitude. It doesn't matter if you're smarter than the guy across the table from you. You won't be smarter than a roomful of people just like him who are working together to take you down.
Aaron Swartz is responsible for what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yes, the Feds played hard and dirty, but they didn't invent those tactics with Swartz. When you taunt a rattlesnake, you don't blame the rattlesnake for doing what a rattlesnake does when it bites you.
Aaron Swartz deliberately set out to commit an act of civil disobedience without thinking through the consequences. According to Norton, Swartz desired a career in politics (another indication of his naivete; I could hardly think of anyone less suited for it), and was deathly afraid of what a felony conviction would do to his prospects. Yet instead of keeping his nose squeaky clean (particularly given his interactions with the Feds after the PACER incident), he pulled a stunt that put him squarely in their sights once again. Did he even think to talk to a lawyer before he started downloading the JSTOR database? Apparently not. His ego and his hubris were his downfall.
Unfortunately, Swartz pulled her into his mess the moment he called her up for bail money. The fact that he failed to even anticipate the possibility of arrest, and make provisions beforehand, shows just how dumb a smart person can be.
I also had to laugh when I read Norton's account of how she "outwitted" and "infuriated" the prosecutors during her grand jury testimony. She should spend more time around lawyers, and watch how their courtroom "rage" gets turned on and off like a switch. They won the game just by making her life miserable, and making sure Swartz knew about it. Getting an indictment from the grand jury would have just been icing on the cake for them.
But frankly I think she should stop kicking herself for telling the Feds about the manifesto. It was a public document, for God's sake. Swartz was a jerk for blaming her for talking about something he was supposedly proud to put his name to. Everyone is looking for someone to blame, but she did the best she thought she could with a situation she had no control over.
This is a sad, sad case of two smart people who simply weren't nearly as smart as they thought they were. If nothing else, Swartz's death may at least cause some other starry-eyed idealist to think twice before he or she kicks the hornets' nest.
Re:Naivete kills !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Aaron Swartz is responsible for what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yes, the Feds played hard and dirty, but they didn't invent those tactics with Swartz. When you taunt a rattlesnake, you don't blame the rattlesnake for doing what a rattlesnake does when it bites you.
But I can blame people for behaving like rattlesnakes, and a government for supporting that behavior..
Re:Naivete kills !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Aaron Swartz is responsible for what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yes, the Feds played hard and dirty, but they didn't invent those tactics with Swartz. When you taunt a rattlesnake, you don't blame the rattlesnake for doing what a rattlesnake does when it bites you.
You entire post sounds like what Aaron did (the JSTOR database publication, not the suicide) was wrong and no one should ever follow him. When we think some law is unjust, we should not challenge it, because the rattlesnake goverment could bite us, we should just stay quiet and swallow it up. Is it what you are trying to say?
I cannot agree with this. People need to challenge things they don't agree with. The evil in this case is the prosecutor and the law which enabled him to buly and threat Aaron with charges of up to 30 years in prison for act with no or minimal damages. Let's not forget this.
Re:Naivete kills !! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is not what I'm trying to say, or what I said in my post.
I strongly support efforts to roll back increasingly onerous changes in copyright law. (FYI, I want U.S. copyright to go back to the original 28 year limits, and I want to see software patents eliminated.) I can also admire people who commit acts of civil disobedience, even if I don't necessarily agree with their points of view.
The problem is that what Swartz did was not an act of civil disobedience. It was a self-aggrandizing publicity stunt. The entire point of civil disobedience is to admit to what you did and be punished by the authorities in order to publicize what you believe is an unjust law. Had Swartz accepted that initial plea bargain for the single felony conviction, and then read his manifesto to the court during his sentencing, then people would have at least admired his courage and idealism, even if they didn't agree with what he advocated.
Instead, Swartz blamed other people for the mess he got himself into, including his own girlfriend, whom he should have known better than to involve in the first place. The JSTOR publication was a poorly planned ego trip that blew up in Swartz's face, and that is what I disapprove of. It accomplished nothing except to ruin peoples' lives, particularly that of Aaron Swartz.
Re:Naivete kills !! (Score:5, Informative)
What kind of a journalist doesn't know that a prosecutor can make the grand jury indict a ham sandwich if he wants to? It doesn't require deep knowledge of the legal system; it only requires watching a few episodes of Law and Order.
The legal system may be crooked. It may be hard to not talk when the judge can put you in jail for remaining silent. The 5th protects only you, not someone else - you have no right to remain silent if you are not witnessing against yourself. Prosecution is always happy to give you a worthless immunity, since they never wanted you indicted in the first place. You cannot lie either, because you don't know if your answers are cross-checked with someone else's - and they usually are. The best way to deal with law is to avoid it altogether.
Re: (Score:3)
This wasn't voluntary, she wasn't brought before a grand jury. She could have said "I don't know." or "I don't recall." and there's no way to compel her to respond to the prosecuting attorney, however this would have certainly put her in their sites as well. The bottom line here is that she made a human error. Not hubris, in no place did she thing she could outsmart the prosecutors, she simply didn't believe she had anything to share that would warrant prosecution (and as some above points out, if they want
Re: (Score:3)
That's on Lungs (and later The Hammer Party,) not Songs About Fucking.
Cops too. (Score:5, Informative)
The job of police and prosecutors is to establish guilt. They are not there to help you. They are there to harm you in any way they can. Do not talk to them at all if you can avoid it.
Don't Talk To Cops [youtube.com] is a video detailing exactly how someone who is PURELY INNOCENT can have their words twisted to prove their "guilt". If you have not watched this, watch it. Make your kids watch it too.
Re:Cops too. (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP.
Don't Talk To Cops is the most informative video to grace the pages of Youtube.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cops too. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's supposed to be an adversarial system: The prosecution tries to prove guilt, the defense tries, if not to prove innocence, then at least to show that guilt cannot be proven. A neutral party then listens to the arguments from both sides and decides who has the stronger argument.
The problem is that the prosecution has a very strong incentive to get a conviction, even if that means not playing fair: They have every reason to manipulate, intimidate, hide evidence, outright lie to the defendant, seize everything they possibly can on any grounds and seal bank accounts so the defendant cannot afford a competent defense, and in general do anything and everything they can in order to secure a conviction: Because their job is no longer to search for the truth: Their job is to get that conviction. Their careers depend upon it.
Re:Cops too. (Score:5, Insightful)
>>The problem is that the prosecution has a very strong incentive to get a conviction, even if that means not playing fair: They have every reason to manipulate, intimidate, hide evidence, outright lie to the defendant, seize everything they possibly can on any grounds and seal bank accounts so the defendant cannot afford a competent defense, and in general do anything and everything they can in order to secure a conviction: Because their job is no longer to search for the truth: Their job is to get that conviction. Their careers depend upon it.
Right. And it's asymmetrical. If the defense offered some schlub in their corporation a million dollars to testify that they never saw any criminal wrongdoing inside of Enron, or whatever, this would be illegal.
But when a US Attorney does bribery, it's called a "plea bargain". They can come into a corporation, threaten some random joe with life in prison unless they testify against their boss, and then surprise, surprise! All this damning evidence magically appears against the boss, much of which is probably made-up, but impossible to prove. "Oh, yes, Mr. Jones once told me he'd go to jail if this scheme was found out!"
Unfortunately, there was a lawsuit on this very issue, and the justices ruled that this wasn't bribery, because if it was bribery, the legal system would fall apart.
Re: (Score:3)
"It's supposed to be an adversarial system"
No, it isn't. That's the case when two private parties litigate each other.
"The prosecution tries to prove guilt, the defense tries, if not to prove innocence, then at least to show that guilt cannot be proven."
No, that's not the way it's supposed to work. Defense tries within the legal boundaries to get the best possible outcome for their defendent no matter what.
BUT (a very big and very important but), prosecution is not a kind of specular antagonist of the def
Re:Cops too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, I came in here to post these videos.
The only information to give to the police is your lawyer's name. Ideally, let your lawyer tell them that too.
Re:Cops too. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't Talk To Cops [youtube.com] is a video detailing exactly how someone who is PURELY INNOCENT can have their words twisted to prove their "guilt". If you have not watched this, watch it. Make your kids watch it too.
Another good video, produced by Flex Your Rights and ACLU, is entitled BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters. [youtube.com] It discusses home visits, traffic stops, and Terry stops. [wikipedia.org]
The Flex Your Rights YouTube channel [youtube.com] currently hosts 83 videos covering various situations, with recommendations for handling them.
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically the police are, as the kids say, 'incentivized' to closed cases and get the collar. There is not enough incentive to insure the criminal is caught, especially for cases where the jury is not going to understand the case and convict on the basis that the police said the suspect did it.
Police are much better at this than any civilian. There is a reason why we have a right to legal representation, and why we should always get it. There is a reason why on TV procedurals the cops are always trying to keep the lawyers away. Remember, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
Just look at the so-called cannibal cop. No evidence that he it is anything other than fantasy, yet he is on trial for conspiracy. Or the kid who was conned into plotting to detonate a bomb by the FBI. He was an impressionable kid, with the same delusions of grandeur of any other kid. (And for those who say he was not a kid, then why can't an adult drink until 21?). He was manipulated by expert government personell into doing something illegal in the same way that many other kids are manipulated into doing illegal things by the religious fanatics. There was no cry for justice here, just some people trying to get a reputation for conviction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Funny)
Higher quality recording:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ [youtube.com]
Never gonna give yourself up?
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
The correct translation of the video is "Don't talk to cops when they suspect you of something."
Somehow, in the warped world of many of the anti-cop posters here, this gets warped into "Don't talk to cops for any reason whatsoever."
Q. "Hey dude, I'm Officer McIlroy...this guy just stole an old lady's handbag and knocked her to the ground. Quick, did you see which way she went?"
A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "So you have come to report your car was stolen. Approximately what time did you notice it missing?"
A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "You are calling to report your house was broken into and your computer was stolen?"
A. "Yes, but I want my lawyer."
Q. "Everyone remain calm...we need everyone to evacuate the building. There's a fire in the basement. Follow us, we will lead you to safety."
A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "So your ex-boyfriend reached into your car window, grabbed your Bichon Frise and tossed it into oncoming traffic? That's horrible! Where does your ex-boyfriend live? We will go get him."
A. "I want my lawyer."
If you believe the "only correct answer" is "I want my lawyer" in the above scenarios, then you deserve whatever crimes befall you. Grow up.
That is why this is so serious (Score:3)
I get where you are coming from, but how do you know the cop doesn't think you did these things? Cops will also lie and say they are investigating someone else.
What can happen is you end up with a basic societal break down. When cops are allowed to lie or distort to get evidence, you lose the ability to talk to them.
To a large extent that has happened in some communities, these types of tactics destroy the police's relationship with the community. It is very serious and I would rather a few criminals esc
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Informative)
You can't actually do this. Grand juries can compel testimony. There are people in prison right now [wsws.org] for refusing to testify in front of grand juries. And because it's considered civil contempt, you get no trial, no appeal.
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Informative)
They're only jailed for as long as the grand jury is sitting. Secondly, you can contest coercive contempt charges, it's just that your grounds for contesting them are more limited.
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're called before a Grand Jury in the US, you don't have the right to remain silent. The prosecution can effectively force you to answer questions, and if you refuse, you can be jailed for years.
It's still good advice to say absolutely nothing, but it's not as simple as most of you seem to believe. By saying nothing, you are condemning yourself to jail.
This is why pretty much only anarchists refuse to cooperate with Grand Juries, because they have a fundamental ideological opposition to the legal system and will never cooperate with the prosecution, even when their right not to cooperate is suspended. It's one thing to legally exercise your rights, it's another to be willing to go to jail for them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have two three letter phrases for you: "I don't know" "I don't remember" . Remember those, and you set the bar high even where they may not come after you in a worst case scenario because of the psychological aspect. However, this obviously doesn't work for is this color red or blue type questions. But on something like did you hear 1 gun shot or 2? Wtf are they gonna do, tell you you're wrong on what you thought you heard?
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:5, Interesting)
My father, who was the most straight-laced, church-going guy you would ever meet, once told me that if I ever got into trouble and got arrested that the one and *only* thing I was to say to police was "I won't speak to you without my lawyer present." It was pretty shocking to me that my Ned Flanders-esque dad would give me that kind of advice. But the older and more experienced I get, the more I realize that this is exactly the same advice I'm going to give to my son (after telling him to try to avoid getting into trouble to begin with, of course).
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't be said enough.
The police are NOT our friends. They have their job. Their job descriptions make every one of us a suspect at every moment of every day. Our ridiculous legal system makes us guilty of something or anything at any given moment of every day. If you open your mouth at all, you have already said too much. This is not an exaggeration.
If we want a system where the police are not our adversaries, we should create a means by which advancement is measured not by the number of tickets or criminals arrested, but by how few and by how much, in theory, crime has been reduced. One approach makes them seek out criminals often confusing innocents while the other approach makes them more careful before they even classify something as a crime at all!
Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is surprising? (Score:2, Informative)
What's that line that's been repeatedly drummed into our heads?
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer: "loose lips shink ships" or "snitches get stitches"
Re: (Score:2)
"Anything you say can and will be used against you..."
And, apparently, your friends and family as well.
Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
Don't Talk To Police [youtube.com]
this is a law enforcement mindset (Score:2)
So Now His Friend Is to Blame? (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn’t know anything the prosecution cared about, and I thought that maybe I could talk Steve [Heymann, the lead prosecutor] out of the prosecution, or at least into not being so harsh. This was so obviously a ridiculous application of justice, I thought. If I just had the chance to explain, maybe this would all go away. My lawyers told me this was possible. They nursed this idea. They told me Steve wanted to meet me, and they wanted me to meet him. They wanted to set up something called a proffer — a kind of chat with the prosecution.
Perhaps you should have spoken with Aaron's lawyers?
The anarchist dictum when it comes to grand juries, explains Salon's Natasha Lennard, is a simple one: 'No one talks, everyone walks.'
Isn't this just called "The Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org]"? Or will I be downmodded for using the word "prisoner" -- too harsh for the Aaron Swartz case?
In a moment Norton describes as “profoundly foolish” she told the grand jury that Swartz had co-authored a blog post advocating for open data. As we now know, his Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto was used by prosecutors as evidence that the technologist had “malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.”
So did he write it or not? I mean, he was twenty six years old and at some point you have to start being responsible for your actions. Norton is blaming herself for telling someone about something that Swartz wrote? I mean, at what point was he going to stand up and say proudly "This is my cause and I'm not afraid to stand up for it"? Yeah, if you write stuff that talks about breaking the law and then you are investigated for breaking such laws -- that of course is going to be used as motive!
Political activism is apparently not for people who are clinically depressed. What is supposed to change here? Are prosecutors not supposed to seek a motive when they have a suspect? When someone we do want to go to jail like an embezzler writes an e-mail to his wife about his embezzlement, are prosecutors not supposed to turn the screws on her to get that information? I don't get it! What is Norton blaming herself for? Why write it if you don't believe it and why break the laws that you think are unjust if you're not prepared to challenge them in court?
Did he write it? Was it pertinent to the case? Then what's the problem here? Who betrayed who? Would you rather have prosecutors with hands tied when they need to prove that someone planned to break a law by discovering what they were writing prior to their alleged crimes? Is that not his name at the bottom of the manifesto?
I'm sorry he decided to take his own life and it sickens me that the Slashdot group think is that doing so was his only logical choice. But at some point you have to take the mittens off and stop beating up other people for Aaron Swartz's own words and actions. Political activism is not a place for fragile people who can't handle a book being thrown at them. We celebrate those who stood up to and challenged the governments and did so without resorting to taking their own lives or others'.
Re: (Score:2)
What you say might be used against you, but there is no need for your friends to make the DAs job any easier.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We celebrate those who stood up to and challenged the governments and did so without resorting to taking their own lives or others'.
We also celebrate those who sacrificed their lives for their causes. Whether it's Aaron Swartz or Mohamed Bouazizi, these people deserve to be honored.
Re: (Score:2)
As a martyr, I think we can count him successful.
Must Watch YouTube Video (Score:5, Informative)
Don't talk to he police [youtube.com] I was shocked when I watched this.
NEVER Talk to LEOs (Score:5, Informative)
...watch a lawyer and sheriff explain why. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. Why discriminate based on someone's birthday?
Sorry for getting worked up about this, but - I'm a Leo.
She was warned not to (Score:5, Insightful)
by every lawyer she encountered. Swartz's family pleaded with her not to talk to them. She was an arrogant fool.
When under investigation trust no one (Score:2)
Not your friend, your family, people you've known all your life. There will be no one you can trust because anyone can be pressured to turn against you with enough threats against them. To trust anyone would put them in greater risk of being pressured and being destroyed too.
Re: (Score:3)
What a bunch of pathetic Monday morning quarterbacks. I have a lot of trouble believing you could walk a mile in her moccasins.
Interesting video related to this topic (Score:3)
Something I watched a couple years ago, and I think still holds true on the idea of never talking to the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, man, nothing wrong with increasing awareness.
Re:Interesting video related to this topic (Score:5, Interesting)
It's good advice. Except when it isn't. I kept my mouth shut when a cop tried to interrogate me at a sobriety checkpoint and that led to my being beaten, nearly strangled to death, and brought up on enough false charges to put me in jail for 3-5 years.
Angering or annoying the wrong cop can be very dangerous or even fatal and standing up for your so called "rights" pisses most of them off. The honest ones won't do anything about it. The dishonest ones may take matters into their own hands and the consequences can be severe. Standing up for your rights is really a kind of Russian Roulette, at least here in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Angering or annoying the wrong cop can be very dangerous or even fatal and standing up for your so called "rights" pisses most of them off. The honest ones won't do anything about it.
Then there are no honest ones.
Re: (Score:3)
A) Don't trust anyone who talks fast. They aren't giving you time to think about their statements.
B) Suspect anyone who uses the term 'The Government' when talking about a small group of people that are part of the government. It's a type of FUD.
C) Several of his examples are from people who confessed. Innocent but confessed.
D) Protectors you're 5th amendment and never talk to the police are different things.
E) When giving the multiple choice, he forces an answer by giving them a selection.
A personal anecd
Eeejit (Score:2)
On tv they have those cops shows where they play good cop / bad cop or lie to the suspect in order to get information or a confession. As valued spectators we only get to see the times these methods are used to catch a pedophile or stop a nuclear bomb, but in real life this is how it's done all the time. One should keep this in mind when dealing with po-po.
Lennard needed better counsel (Score:3)
Aaron was furious. He told me not to meet Steve. But no one, including Aaron, would tell me why. No one would tell me even how to get out of it. And still I had an unshakable belief that if I could just somehow explain all this it would go away. I delayed once, too sick to go. My lawyers told me Steve was furious at my medical delay. I might be arrested. I told Aaron, and others, that I wanted to talk to Steve human to human.
Never talking is not necessarily practical. But the problem is not recognizing that once something progresses to a certain point a "human to human" talk is never ever ever going to stop an investigation or prosecution. They were way past that point. That is where they get you: when you believe a human tale will persuade while they are looking for mis-steps that will hang you and all your friends.
The prosecution only hesitates when sources of evidence completely dry up. Talking encourages the prosecution.
These lawyers were giving ineffective counsel, even though they were probably thinking that they could get her immunity for her cooperation and testimony.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaron was furious. He told me not to meet Steve. But no one, including Aaron, would tell me why. No one would tell me even how to get out of it. And still I had an unshakable belief that if I could just somehow explain all this it would go away. I delayed once, too sick to go. My lawyers told me Steve was furious at my medical delay. I might be arrested. I told Aaron, and others, that I wanted to talk to Steve human to human.
Never talking is not necessarily practical. But the problem is not recognizing that once something progresses to a certain point a "human to human" talk is never ever ever going to stop an investigation or prosecution. They were way past that point. That is where they get you: when you believe a human tale will persuade while they are looking for mis-steps that will hang you and all your friends.
The prosecution only hesitates when sources of evidence completely dry up. Talking encourages the prosecution.
These lawyers were giving ineffective counsel, even though they were probably thinking that they could get her immunity for her cooperation and testimony.
Talking to them on their terms is stupid.
Do you understand? (Score:2)
"anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you (and others)"
Obviously not.
What else are the supposed to do (Score:2)
they are looking for criminal behaviors, so they talk to people about it.
Lessons learned (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The mindset of criminal investigators in America: (Score:4, Insightful)
~Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.
When it comes to criminal investigations in America, there is nothing you can ever say that will help your case. The only thing you can do is make it worse. The best bit of advice is to shut the fuck up and lawyer up.
Re: (Score:3)
Now if only such a similar criminal investigation would be brought against the people (and by people, I mean the federal prosecutors who targeted Swartz) who subverted the justice system to push corporate special interest.
What I've Learned (Score:3)
Generally speaking a police officer is indistinguishable from a criminal gang member. If you are going to do something you would not do in the presence of a gang member you might want to think twice about it. Again, ask yourself the question,"Is this something I would do if I were being detained by a violent street gang member with a gun?"
Any form of challenge, disagreement, lack of cooperation, hostility, anger, or anything that could be interpreted even as the most mild form of disrespect is highly dangerous. These are people who are often completely amoral sociopaths. They will not feel guilt or remorse about injuring or killing you or anyone else. They could frame you for even the most serious of crimes and not feel even a hint of guilt afterward. Whether a particular cop happens to interpret silence as disrespect depends on the individual in question. Some will and some won't. It's a roll of the dice. Same as with an armed street gang member.
If the cop dealing with you looks mean or violent or angry you may have no choice but to answer if you want to avoid a long hospital stay or getting zipped up in a body bag or just old fashioned brain damage. Keep in mind that some cops simply will not take no for an answer. They may keep repeating the question until they get worked up enough to throw you down or start choking you or beating you or using their tazer on you until you comply. You have to know when to change tactics by dropping the assumption that they will obey the law. In this case trying to answer their questions without incriminating yourself is the key. Keep in mind that the cops can claim that you said a particular thing and a jury is more likely to believe him than you. They don't really need you to confess to a crime. They can do that for you and will not mind it. They are used to lying in court all the time and their police reports are often more fiction than fact. This is the unfortunate reality. Most people don't realize it until they or someone they know are thrown into the system themselves. Even then few people truly want to believe it.
Your plan in action (Score:5, Insightful)
Police: So, which way did the mugger run? ... ... ...
You:
Police: Hello? Can you talk?
You:
Police: Don't you want to get your wallet back?
You:
Police: Eh, fuck it. I'll be at the donut shop.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You make the hugely false assumption that a cop would give a mother fuck about a mugger or a person's wallet. Seriously dude....
Re:Your plan in action (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably the best policy.
Lest they find you guilty of something unrelated.
The police are not your friend.
Re:The police are not your friend. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are lucky you were not charged with assault or anything else they could come up with. Far easier to go after you who are easy to reach than hunt down someone else. They might be temporary allies, but not friends.
Re:temporary allies, but not friends (Score:5, Insightful)
They might be temporary allies, but not friends.
Understood.
My dad used to be a public defender, and It's interesting to me how nearly every tv show demonizes public defenders, and gives halos to the police. Granted you can't really trust a lawyer any more than anyone else (including police), but we are all just people here.
Re: (Score:3)
My dad used to be a public defender, we are all just people here.
Nice try, but we're not buying that a public defender is a person.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because story conventions work much better that way. People want to see a guilty person punished. Very often, 'justice' is just a polite term for 'vengeance.'
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"You are lucky you were not charged with assault or anything else they could come up with. "
you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. The vast majority of cops get into the line of work because they want to help people. If you believe that a cop's first response is to start suspecting YOU when you report a crime against you to them, you are incredibly naive and cynical. Some cops are assholes to the average person, sure. But Most of the cops I have dealt with are entirely reasonable in situations when you are reporting a crime against them.
Re: (Score:2)
You: That way.
Police: Eh, fuck it. I'll be at the donut shop.
I fail to see how talking helped you. It can't ever help and will only make it worse. Hell, I had a robber on video, and they still called me in to lineups and such, and never caught the guy (though if ever his girlfriend talks, they may link him to other crimes).
Re: (Score:3)
I've reported a stolen cell phone, who the thief was using and answering, and the detective assigned to the case wouldn't return my calls. I deactivated the phone, but never heard whether he would have been willing to call and talk to the thief.
Nope, cops do
Re:Your plan in action (Score:5, Interesting)
"We got your wallet back. Looks like there was a little cocaine in there. Well, maybe the mugger had it, maybe he didn't."
*handcuffs*
"Now I can get a warrant to search your phone and house. You have receipts for all this music?"
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that scenario is that you are very likely to be arrested on contempt of cop charges. Depending on the cop you may be beaten as well. A cop is likely to treat silence as disrespect.
Not that I disagree about the best course of action. A simple rule is easiest to follow: never, ever, under any circumstances speak to a member of law enforcement if you have a choice in the matter. If the cop puts his glock in your mouth however you're on your own. Assuming that cops have integrity and will foll
Re: (Score:3)
Cop: "Is there any money in it?"
Me: "No, I didn't check" *looks inside, finds 20 bucks*
Cop: "Keep the money, give me the wallet."
Me: *uncomprehending look*
Cop: "If I take this to the precinct, the money will be gone in minutes. You might as well get a reward".
Me: *looks suspiciously at the cop*
Cop: "Here, take it. Get out of here."
M
Re:Your plan in action (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe that story for a second.
Re: (Score:2)
As some who has work with law enforcement, I don't believe that story for a moment.
tl;dr - He's a fucking liar.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We Know (Score:5, Interesting)
That's funny. I've had several pleasant conversations with cops.
It helps when you're not an adversarial dickbag to the cops.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us don't need to be taught that lesson: don't commit crimes.
If you think you've never committed a crime, you've never read the US Revised Statutes.
Here's a resource, [overcriminalized.com] Now please STFU and educate yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
This is also not about being a criminal.
The person who is the subject of this article is not a criminal. She was not accused of anything. If anything, she's the next of kin.
Perhaps she should have married the guy and invoked spousal priveledge.
Re: (Score:2)
She should have pled the Fifth.
Can't incriminate anyone if you refuse to speak at all...
Re:We Know (Score:5, Insightful)
Or more accurately:
1. Don't ever commit a crime serious enough to be worth the time it'd take the police to arrest and charge you.
and
2. Don't ever annoy any person who has enough money and/or influence to make the million and one minor crimes you can't help suddenly become worth the time.
Swartz did both of these: He commited a crime, but the crime in itsself would likely have resulted in only a slap-on-the-wrist punishment, unless the offended party really pressed - the downloading was a civil matter, copyright infringement, and he did actually have authorised access. His 'hacking' was just finding a way to shift more data. But he'd also established himself as a troublemaker, an anti-government activist with a history of making trouble for the state, and so someone decided to throw the book at him.
You can also look at, say, David Kernell - he who hacked Sarah Palin's email, revealing to the world a couple of minor scandals, though nothing huge. If he had hacked my email, or yours (Assuming you are, like me, a no-one) than asking the police to bother tracking him down would just get you laughed out of the station. But Palin was a person of influence, and even though the attacked account was personal and should have held nothing of any role in government whatsoever*, her role as a person of influence was enough to get the police to launch a full investigation, track him down, and sentence him to a year and a day in jail. The extra day, I gather, is something to do with a condition relating to rehabilitation that only applies to sentences of one year or less. But IANAL, so I'm not really sure how that bit works.
*Using the account for government business would actually have been a criminal offense on Palin's part, Kernell hacked in to see if she was. Turned out he was half-right: She had indeed been using the account for official business, but only the most minor and inane of matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you love someone, doesn't mean you shouldn't turn them in if they do something wrong and criminal.
You do realize those two things are not mutually inclusive, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it means exactly that.
Blood is thicker than water. The state is not your family. Your employer is not your family either.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because there are some very much more basic laws at play: Whoever has the strength to enforce their will gets to make their will law. That's how it always worked, and how it always will work. How it has to work. There is no other way. The whole idea of government is to set up a force which holds power by that principle, but still has some level of restriction. Sometimes it works, and sometimes those with power run amok.
Re: (Score:3)
"she told the grand jury that Swartz had co-authored a blog post advocating for open data (the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto), which prosecutors latched onto and spun into evidence that the technologist had 'malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.'"
What's next? If they find that someone wrote somewhere that he didn't like the look of the WTC building, it will be used as evidence that he was involved in the 9/11 attack?
The point is, if they want to get you then they'll find something on you. If you're a saint, a team of informants can change that.
I should have read the other responses first.... (Score:3)
...because now I'm the 109th guy posting this link, at least. Oh well.
Re: (Score:3)
To be an activist is to be a warrior. Nothing is gained by activism except for a lengthy FBI file and informants spreading lies about you, rumors, and trying to entrap you into crimes for their bosses.They do this because they committed a crime and agreed with police to become informants to help bring down the enemies of the police through entrapment.
That is the system and it's corrupt by design. If you support Wikileaks then don't be surprised if your friends from years stop talking to you. Look at what a government investigation can do here http://www.jbhfile.com/harm_examples.html [jbhfile.com] and think twice about supporting Wikileaks.
No, that's what a paranoid person spouts on his blog