The White House's non-response on the two-year anniversary of Aaron Swartz's death shows why these petitions are not only flawed, but should be avoided by people who actually care about political or policy change.
Look at the nearby discussion: Instead of asking why Carmen Ortiz, who's been in her current job for nearly six years, is still there, we're debating the terms of use of the petition site. Instead of wondering why a law originally designed to protect NORAD was used to drive Aaron Swartz to suicide -- despite his JSTOR "victim" never asking for a criminal prosecution -- we're reminiscing about other, equally useless, petitions in the past.
I admit it's a brilliant move by this administration (to be sure, Rs would do the same thing). Instead of having people sign up to be members of EFF or ACLU or TechFreedom.org, which will send email alerts when legal fixes like "Aaron's Law" are pending in Congress, people slap their names on a petition that results in a committee-managed non-response on the two year anniversary of his death.
Imagine if even 5% or 10% of the 61,179 people who signed that petition instead organized rallies in their cities, or a kind of Leave The Internet Alone rally in DC. That might or may not accomplish something; it surely would accomplish more than signing the petition did. (You could wrap in a bunch of related topics: DMCA/copyright reform, NSA reform, CFAA reform and more.)
I'm sorry if I sound frustrated. I spent hundreds of hours interviewing folks involved in the case and reading court documents about the Aaron Swartz prosecution while I was at CNET before leaving to build http://recent.io/. What happened to him was a tragedy, but Carmen Ortiz will leave for a seven-figure law firm job at a time that's convenient for her, and an effort in Congress to fix things actually coughed up a bill to make current law worse:
http://www.cnet.com/news/aarons-law-rewrite-backfires-reform...
If you're interested, here's a detailed piece I wrote about the federal anti-hacking law Carmen Ortiz wielded against Aaron Swartz, and how it was never originally intended to cover what he was accused of doing:
http://www.cnet.com/news/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u...
> Imagine if even 5% or 10% of the 61,179 people who signed that petition instead organized rallies in their cities, or a kind of Leave The Internet Alone rally in DC.
Because the truth is that people generally don't care enough to do anything worth while ("signing" a petition is pretty minimal in terms of effort). There will always be the activists that are local to the cause who will do everything they can to fight, but everyone else, living their own lives, working, being parents, having hobbies or what have you have their own personal problems to take care of.
It's just routine. With the added regular news from the regular sources, who knows how manipulated they are, they're just so removed from what's actually going on. Not to mention, many people won't ask "What can the people do?" but "What can I do?" and their answer will be: "Nothing!"
We live in a world where people are told to live their lives, handle their business and the rest will be taken care of.
Maybe that's just common in Canada.
I don't like this situation, but this is what I'm seeing.
I disagree with your main point. The petitions are a good idea. We know that some petitions are not going to change the government's mind. But just having a mechanism for getting the government to consider something and provide an official response is a good idea. Previous administrations would simply ignore things they were not interested in. And journalists who get admitted to white house press conferences can often be counted on to completely ignore subjects that were of no interest to either political party.
That being said, petitions do not solve everything and the other political actions you mentioned may be called for. But even then the petition helps, as it provides an official government response which may galvanize other political action.
What if 10% of those 61,179 signed the petition because they couldn't travel to DC or take time off work to rally? What if they have kids, a second job, or an ailing relative they care for?
And suppose they could rally. If it was big enough to garner media attention, it might keep the issue in the spotlight a little longer. But it alone wouldn't change much. During the occupy protests, people rallied for months, and nothing happened.
Protest has no teeth if separated from action. We need to get organized, pressure legislators, support specific policies, and get the right people in office.
> Imagine if even 5% or 10% of the 61,179 people who signed that petition instead organized rallies in their cities, or a kind of Leave The Internet Alone rally in DC. That might or may not accomplish something;
Well, but wasn't it actually exact purpose behind creating the site? So that people vent on it, instead of rallying on the streets? Of course, this is disgusting, but wouldn't surprise me...
> but Carmen Ortiz will leave for a seven-figure law
To those of us who believe in Higher Power, she will face much harsher consequences when she crosses to the other side.
I agree that the petitions site is never going to create real change in the government, but I disagree that it is harmful.
Grassroots action is not a zero-sum game, in which a petition steals energy from a rally (or whatever). People do not have a fixed amount of "grassroots energy" per person.
Activism is more like building a bank account in each person, in which you have to make regular "deposits" by reminding each person of the issue, then re-reminding them, then engaging them, then re-engaging them...until finally there's enough personal interest that they will begin to take more effective action like calling Congress, attending a rally, etc.
This petition was never going to do anything about a particular US Attorney...but it's providing a great platform to remind everyone of what happened, and why, and how things could be different.
Basically: without this petition response announced today, you wouldn't have posted about Swartz today, and many thousands of people would not have read it--a net negative.
The core issues here, as they seem to always be, are:
1. Getting people organized and calling them to action.
Frankly, Aaron got this, and he could blend code, politics, and organize people around causes. Down deep, I suspect some people who would not benefit from those attributes took notice. Call me out on that being a conspiracy theory, and I may not even argue. But, I found that aspect of Aaron compelling. Hard to imagine others didn't take notice.
He left some great models. There doesn't seem to be anybody out there picking up those pieces, or if they are, it's not apparent --or as apparent as Aaron's efforts were.
Maybe it takes a group to do what he did. I don't know, but I sure liked what he was doing. It got people thinking, talking, contributing, doing more.
Rallies and such get attention. I like seeing them, and I like participating in them. What I don't know is how effective they are in the current media climate. One distinctive aspect of how Aaron chose to move people and set things in motion is it worked through non-mainstream / traditional / old media channels.
I do know for sure that we need more of that. If it's connected to citizen action events, great! Maybe that helps actualize it for people or keep them motivated.
2. Money in the politics.
We've all hashed this out. Let's just say I agree with Lessig in that we are going to have to somehow work this system to change it. I don't know if Mayday is the right kind of effort, but I support it, because we will learn things from it at the very least.
Others differ in their goals, and again, it's really hard to get people centered in on this, and we need to. We need to, because darn near every issue we care about is linked to it, and we are always making trade-offs, instead of actually getting things resolved to a better state we all would live better with.
And living better is really the goal, isn't it? I don't care who is right, or who has it perfect. I just want things better.
Seems to me, we should be able to center in on "better" and not worry so much about perfect, or "right", just better and maybe keep doing that so that we get to "right" or "just" or "perfect" over time, incrementally.
Until we see significant and sustained action on these fronts, I'm afraid it's more deals, not any meaningful changes we can feel good about. And those deals can be really ugly, or somewhat ugly, or maybe just sort of OK too. Depends on our voice and who we've got in the legislative role at the time.
> "Look at the nearby discussion: Instead of asking why Carmen Ortiz, who's been in her current job for nearly six years, is still there, we're debating the terms of use of the petition site. Instead of wondering why a law originally designed to protect NORAD was used to drive Aaron Swartz to suicide -- despite his JSTOR "victim" never asking for a criminal prosecution -- we're reminiscing about other, equally useless, petitions in the past."
As an interesting aside, I was reading the article about the internal communications of the Chinese communist party's propaganda machine (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8856218) and one of the internet commenters on the payroll for the Party had this to say:
> “When transferring the attention of netizens and blurring the public focus, going off the topic is very effective.”
I find the USG response to this petition laughably transparent in the same way, but it will still be effective in general.
> "The White House's non-response on the two-year anniversary of Aaron Swartz's death shows why these petitions are not only flawed, but should be avoided by people who actually care about political or policy change."
This has always been true; it's not just in this specific case or with respect to whitehouse.gov. A petition is a slightly more sophisticated form of the "like" button, invented in a pre-internet time. Intelligent, directed actions sustained over a period of time cause changes; a boolean expression of opinion without the threat of some undesirable (by those perpetuating the status quo) action behind it is just a way of venting.
> Imagine if even 5% or 10% of the 61,179 people who signed that petition instead organized rallies in their cities, or a kind of Leave The Internet Alone rally in DC. That might or may not accomplish something; it surely would accomplish more than signing the petition did. (You could wrap in a bunch of related topics: DMCA/copyright reform, NSA reform, CFAA reform and more.)
the petition site is nothing more than most manufactures support forums, designed to let people vent. The difference with manufacturers sites is that people can solve problems there as they become nearly self running.
The Whitehouse site was a trick, something to appease the masses who themselves wanted to feel good, feel like they were being heard, fool themselves into thinking they mattered. As in, another use of effective marketing which this Administration was very good at during elections
and this is the state of the world. you talk about how the white house is curtailing the issue of problematic staff by mentioning how that an online petition is not the correct place for that and everyone responds to you about petitions. to be fair to them I guess you even jumped on the bandwagon within your own comment. still no talk about overzealous prosecutors.
So, I am the person who wrote that petition. (and yes I'm aware of the issues with the wording )
The decision to name Carmen Ortiz was deliberate; she is a political appointee and thus could be dismissed at the administrations pleasure. That they chose to hide behind the 'cannot discuss personnel matters' figleaf is to put it plainly; bullshit. Political appointees are just that, political; and the fact that the administration is too cowardly to defend their choice in this matter speaks volumes.
It doesn't really matter; Aaron is still dead, Carmen Ortiz still has her job (although hopefully her political career has topped out) and we carry on.
Honestly, the fact that she's a political appointee is what makes your petition moot. They'll just appoint someone else. She was following directives from the DOJ based on the law. The petition should have called for end to the acadmic papers paywall racket. If you call for a rule that any research receiving government (or at least NIH or NSF) funding must be made freely available upon publish, that is within the purview of the executive and would solve the root problem once and for all.
The SOPA petition drew a clear statement from the White House that they would not support any bill that messed with DNS. That was a win for the anti-SOPA folks because DNS redirection was a key part of that bill.
I was thinking the same thing, but thinking about it more I only get angry (which I suppose is constructive because anger can lead to the drive to do something instead of shitposting on the Internet).
This government would be tripping all over itself to comment if Aaron Schwartz was a police officer that had shot an unarmed kid, although he likely wouldn't have been indicted.
This government would be tripping all over itself to comment if Aaron Schwartz had released data from a private, multinational and said it was about an upcoming movie, although his actions would likely be blamed on what this government considers a rogue state.
This government stands silent and swings its righteous hammer of legalism without concern for harm and proportionality since Aaron Schwartz committed a victimless crime that in no way would change the political party affiliation of anybody voting in the upcoming presidential election. Maybe if he had actually killed somebody or massively hurt the bottom line of a multinational company it would be different...
I thought the site was really cool when it launched which looking back seems pretty naive. Nowadays I see is a way to make people think they have a say in something that they don't and way for the WH to pick and choose petitions to respond to that already align with their stance on things. So in short it's a PR machine for the WH and a blackhole for citizens.
Federal prosecutors always throw the book at people. That is their job, that is how the legal profession works - 2 sides come at a case from the most extreme positions, knowing that the end result will fall somewhere in the middle. Of course they found inappropriate laws to throw at him. Of course it seems over-zealous. That is how our system works. But people need to realize that prosecutors do not expect every charge to stick. They do not expect to actually get the horrible sentences that they threaten.
Because this case never went to trial, any decisions or reactions based on the worst-case scenario threats of prosecutors are unfounded. Any criticisms of laws being unfairly applied would have been argued in court.
The tragedy here remains that Mr. Swartz needed professional psyche help, and did not get it. A smaller tragedy was that he needed better legal help.
Across the board, this is a horrible story. But people continue to focus on the wrong points. Petitions to fire the prosecutor? Really?
We should be working towards better mental health in our society. I would also love to see a change in our legal system, but that one seems a tougher nut to crack.
"You agree to only create petitions consistent with the
limited purpose of the We the People platform, which is to
allow individuals to petition the Administration to take
action on a range of issues — to address a problem, support
or oppose a proposal, or otherwise change or continue
federal government policy or actions. To focus discussion,
the platform is limited to a discrete set of topics, which
may be adjusted over time."
I wonder how releasing the white house beer recipe[1] fits that standard any more than the Aaron Swartz petition?
That link, they put hours into writing those recipes and formatting... Aaron Schwartz got spin (which admittedly, probably took more work hours to not-create)
It's sad that the most on point response I have seen to one of these things was the response to the "Build a Death Star" petition. Everything else just seems like a media spin.
It makes me wonder, what does the White House consider a suitable forum for holding appointed officials to account? Or more appropriately, holding the appointers to account.
To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.
If that is the case then I strongly disagree. Prosecutorial overreach and our broken plea bargaining system is a national issue that desperately needs to be addressed. The wording of the petition may have been very specific, but it still provides an opportunity to address the issue.
Another possible term that applies is this:
You agree to only create petitions consistent with the limited purpose of the We the People platform, which is to allow individuals to petition the Administration to take action on a range of issues — to address a problem, support or oppose a proposal, or otherwise change or continue federal government policy or actions.
In that case only the person who created the petition is in violation. The broad interest in signing the petition is a sign that there is an issue that should be looked at. And indeed there is - the undue impact that prosecutorial overreach can have thanks to our broken plea bargaining system.
I also note that 1.5 years to respond does not fit my notion of "timely" that the platform promised us...
(At a guess they waited to respond to a bunch of these until after an election cycle finished and new legislators were signed in. Best way to guarantee of both low publicity and that anyone outraged will forget about it before any future vote.
The election is the appropriate forum. Except that Americans somehow keep on voting for parties they don't want because they have silly idealistic rivalries.
What a surprise. The response to the petition is meaningless dribble. I'm surprised they didn't reaffirm their commitment to using the Internet to further the cause of making politicians seem useful.
Edit: It was educational, emotional, and enlightening to see what he went through to make the world a better place. Also it's scary to see how much the government can get away with. .. Makes you think.
It's likely that nobody will ever read my feedback, but if enough people respond then maybe somebody will. In any case, here is my feedback.
Please provide any additional comments about the We the People petitions system:
The technology worked fine, but the response was utterly vacuous and without empathy.
Aaron Schwartz took his own life almost exactly two years ago. He was a leader, a visionary, and a friend to many of the people in our community. Most importantly he was a person trying to live his life.
Aaron was subjected to unjust and vicious prosecution for an act of peaceful civil disobedience. That prosecution lead directly to his death. He received a death sentence for downloading academic journals.
This is not a petition about "openness" and "economic growth". This is not about ensuring that "the Internet remains a free and open platform." Hell, it's not even about firing Steve Heymann for his actions. It's about the way we choose how to prosecute civil disobedience (and the way we choose not to prosecute murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner). It's about a justice system that feels increasingly unjust.
Mostly, though, it's about the death of our friend. We'd like an apology for his death, but if you're not willing to do that, at least acknowledge the value of his life. Sympathy is not enough.
As frustrating as the lack of action by the white house might be, I think this petition accomplished something:
I can almost bet Carmen Ortiz' name has been thrown to the hat for career advance nominations (federal judge, justice department) only to be immediately dismissed by white house staffers because "the internet would bury us"
Carmen Ortiz is already a US Attorney of the District of Massachusetts, meaning that she is the head honcho for the DOJ in that state. There isn't much higher that she could go. A federal judgeship (to a district or non-appellate court) would actually be a demotion in pay, responsibilities, and prestige.
That said, the internet has very little to do with her future. The Schwartz case, legally and ethically will have little effect on her career. She has a long and sordid history of not respecting plea deals and of exaggerating drug ties in forfeiture cases. Consequently, she already faced an uphill battle in ever being seriously considered for a judgeship, and she had essentially no chance of receiving a recommendation from the ABA judicial candidate evaluation committee. Like most US Attorneys, she will either go into politics or into a very lucrative position with a law firm as a white collar defense attorney.
Someone should write a plugin or bookmarklet that adds an "official whitehouse response" to every petition which just reads: "Okay? Whatever, we're going to take no action on this." because that's been the response to every petition I've seen so far.
Do I get this right that this so-called response actually represents the absence of any response? And in good government manner it's phrased in a language that could mean anything and therefore means nothing at all. This just makes me want to barf.
Whenever there's one of these petitions that goes nowhere, there are a ton of, "I typed my name into a computer and it didn't make a difference! This country sucks!" responses.
Look, I sympathize with this a little--these petitions imply more than they ever deliver. But realistically if you want to force any significant change it's going to take money, time, and a lot more effort.
It's weird. I truly believe that if this had happened to someone other than Aaron that he'd have found a way to marshall at least an order of magnitude more petitioners. He really had a knack for this kind of thing. Sad to see this blown off like that, adding insult to injury.
It seems that they think this moment is convenient with all of us being distracted, to push this through without too much of fuss.
I am not a president, so I can't publicly disgrace prosecutor, but if I was, I totally would, as her office bullied Aaron Swartz and pushed him over the edge.
[+] [-] declan|11 years ago|reply
Look at the nearby discussion: Instead of asking why Carmen Ortiz, who's been in her current job for nearly six years, is still there, we're debating the terms of use of the petition site. Instead of wondering why a law originally designed to protect NORAD was used to drive Aaron Swartz to suicide -- despite his JSTOR "victim" never asking for a criminal prosecution -- we're reminiscing about other, equally useless, petitions in the past.
I admit it's a brilliant move by this administration (to be sure, Rs would do the same thing). Instead of having people sign up to be members of EFF or ACLU or TechFreedom.org, which will send email alerts when legal fixes like "Aaron's Law" are pending in Congress, people slap their names on a petition that results in a committee-managed non-response on the two year anniversary of his death.
Imagine if even 5% or 10% of the 61,179 people who signed that petition instead organized rallies in their cities, or a kind of Leave The Internet Alone rally in DC. That might or may not accomplish something; it surely would accomplish more than signing the petition did. (You could wrap in a bunch of related topics: DMCA/copyright reform, NSA reform, CFAA reform and more.)
I'm sorry if I sound frustrated. I spent hundreds of hours interviewing folks involved in the case and reading court documents about the Aaron Swartz prosecution while I was at CNET before leaving to build http://recent.io/. What happened to him was a tragedy, but Carmen Ortiz will leave for a seven-figure law firm job at a time that's convenient for her, and an effort in Congress to fix things actually coughed up a bill to make current law worse: http://www.cnet.com/news/aarons-law-rewrite-backfires-reform...
If you're interested, here's a detailed piece I wrote about the federal anti-hacking law Carmen Ortiz wielded against Aaron Swartz, and how it was never originally intended to cover what he was accused of doing: http://www.cnet.com/news/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u...
[+] [-] TheHydroImpulse|11 years ago|reply
Because the truth is that people generally don't care enough to do anything worth while ("signing" a petition is pretty minimal in terms of effort). There will always be the activists that are local to the cause who will do everything they can to fight, but everyone else, living their own lives, working, being parents, having hobbies or what have you have their own personal problems to take care of.
It's just routine. With the added regular news from the regular sources, who knows how manipulated they are, they're just so removed from what's actually going on. Not to mention, many people won't ask "What can the people do?" but "What can I do?" and their answer will be: "Nothing!"
We live in a world where people are told to live their lives, handle their business and the rest will be taken care of.
Maybe that's just common in Canada.
I don't like this situation, but this is what I'm seeing.
[+] [-] hristov|11 years ago|reply
That being said, petitions do not solve everything and the other political actions you mentioned may be called for. But even then the petition helps, as it provides an official government response which may galvanize other political action.
[+] [-] normloman|11 years ago|reply
And suppose they could rally. If it was big enough to garner media attention, it might keep the issue in the spotlight a little longer. But it alone wouldn't change much. During the occupy protests, people rallied for months, and nothing happened.
Protest has no teeth if separated from action. We need to get organized, pressure legislators, support specific policies, and get the right people in office.
[+] [-] joering2|11 years ago|reply
Well, but wasn't it actually exact purpose behind creating the site? So that people vent on it, instead of rallying on the streets? Of course, this is disgusting, but wouldn't surprise me...
> but Carmen Ortiz will leave for a seven-figure law
To those of us who believe in Higher Power, she will face much harsher consequences when she crosses to the other side.
[+] [-] snowwrestler|11 years ago|reply
Grassroots action is not a zero-sum game, in which a petition steals energy from a rally (or whatever). People do not have a fixed amount of "grassroots energy" per person.
Activism is more like building a bank account in each person, in which you have to make regular "deposits" by reminding each person of the issue, then re-reminding them, then engaging them, then re-engaging them...until finally there's enough personal interest that they will begin to take more effective action like calling Congress, attending a rally, etc.
This petition was never going to do anything about a particular US Attorney...but it's providing a great platform to remind everyone of what happened, and why, and how things could be different.
Basically: without this petition response announced today, you wouldn't have posted about Swartz today, and many thousands of people would not have read it--a net negative.
[+] [-] ddingus|11 years ago|reply
1. Getting people organized and calling them to action.
Frankly, Aaron got this, and he could blend code, politics, and organize people around causes. Down deep, I suspect some people who would not benefit from those attributes took notice. Call me out on that being a conspiracy theory, and I may not even argue. But, I found that aspect of Aaron compelling. Hard to imagine others didn't take notice.
He left some great models. There doesn't seem to be anybody out there picking up those pieces, or if they are, it's not apparent --or as apparent as Aaron's efforts were.
Maybe it takes a group to do what he did. I don't know, but I sure liked what he was doing. It got people thinking, talking, contributing, doing more.
Rallies and such get attention. I like seeing them, and I like participating in them. What I don't know is how effective they are in the current media climate. One distinctive aspect of how Aaron chose to move people and set things in motion is it worked through non-mainstream / traditional / old media channels.
I do know for sure that we need more of that. If it's connected to citizen action events, great! Maybe that helps actualize it for people or keep them motivated.
2. Money in the politics.
We've all hashed this out. Let's just say I agree with Lessig in that we are going to have to somehow work this system to change it. I don't know if Mayday is the right kind of effort, but I support it, because we will learn things from it at the very least.
Others differ in their goals, and again, it's really hard to get people centered in on this, and we need to. We need to, because darn near every issue we care about is linked to it, and we are always making trade-offs, instead of actually getting things resolved to a better state we all would live better with.
And living better is really the goal, isn't it? I don't care who is right, or who has it perfect. I just want things better.
Seems to me, we should be able to center in on "better" and not worry so much about perfect, or "right", just better and maybe keep doing that so that we get to "right" or "just" or "perfect" over time, incrementally.
Until we see significant and sustained action on these fronts, I'm afraid it's more deals, not any meaningful changes we can feel good about. And those deals can be really ugly, or somewhat ugly, or maybe just sort of OK too. Depends on our voice and who we've got in the legislative role at the time.
My .02 anyway.
[+] [-] john_b|11 years ago|reply
As an interesting aside, I was reading the article about the internal communications of the Chinese communist party's propaganda machine (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8856218) and one of the internet commenters on the payroll for the Party had this to say:
> “When transferring the attention of netizens and blurring the public focus, going off the topic is very effective.”
I find the USG response to this petition laughably transparent in the same way, but it will still be effective in general.
> "The White House's non-response on the two-year anniversary of Aaron Swartz's death shows why these petitions are not only flawed, but should be avoided by people who actually care about political or policy change."
This has always been true; it's not just in this specific case or with respect to whitehouse.gov. A petition is a slightly more sophisticated form of the "like" button, invented in a pre-internet time. Intelligent, directed actions sustained over a period of time cause changes; a boolean expression of opinion without the threat of some undesirable (by those perpetuating the status quo) action behind it is just a way of venting.
[+] [-] crucini|11 years ago|reply
> despite his JSTOR "victim" never asking for a criminal prosecution
Law enforcement and prosecutors have to take the responsibility, and not put the weight on the victim's shoulders.
You are implicitly advocating a system where the victim can be intimidated out of prosecuting.
[+] [-] lordbusiness|11 years ago|reply
Because Slacktivism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism
[+] [-] Shivetya|11 years ago|reply
The Whitehouse site was a trick, something to appease the masses who themselves wanted to feel good, feel like they were being heard, fool themselves into thinking they mattered. As in, another use of effective marketing which this Administration was very good at during elections
[+] [-] saranagati|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] olefoo|11 years ago|reply
The decision to name Carmen Ortiz was deliberate; she is a political appointee and thus could be dismissed at the administrations pleasure. That they chose to hide behind the 'cannot discuss personnel matters' figleaf is to put it plainly; bullshit. Political appointees are just that, political; and the fact that the administration is too cowardly to defend their choice in this matter speaks volumes.
It doesn't really matter; Aaron is still dead, Carmen Ortiz still has her job (although hopefully her political career has topped out) and we carry on.
[+] [-] tootie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ecaron|11 years ago|reply
Can someone point me to a petition that actually made a difference?
[+] [-] snowwrestler|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patzerhacker|11 years ago|reply
This government would be tripping all over itself to comment if Aaron Schwartz was a police officer that had shot an unarmed kid, although he likely wouldn't have been indicted.
This government would be tripping all over itself to comment if Aaron Schwartz had released data from a private, multinational and said it was about an upcoming movie, although his actions would likely be blamed on what this government considers a rogue state.
This government stands silent and swings its righteous hammer of legalism without concern for harm and proportionality since Aaron Schwartz committed a victimless crime that in no way would change the political party affiliation of anybody voting in the upcoming presidential election. Maybe if he had actually killed somebody or massively hurt the bottom line of a multinational company it would be different...
[+] [-] joshstrange|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codingdave|11 years ago|reply
Because this case never went to trial, any decisions or reactions based on the worst-case scenario threats of prosecutors are unfounded. Any criticisms of laws being unfairly applied would have been argued in court.
The tragedy here remains that Mr. Swartz needed professional psyche help, and did not get it. A smaller tragedy was that he needed better legal help.
Across the board, this is a horrible story. But people continue to focus on the wrong points. Petitions to fire the prosecutor? Really?
We should be working towards better mental health in our society. I would also love to see a change in our legal system, but that one seems a tougher nut to crack.
[+] [-] njovin|11 years ago|reply
[1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/ale-chief-white-ho...
[+] [-] snlacks|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomschlick|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmct|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|11 years ago|reply
To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.
If that is the case then I strongly disagree. Prosecutorial overreach and our broken plea bargaining system is a national issue that desperately needs to be addressed. The wording of the petition may have been very specific, but it still provides an opportunity to address the issue.
Another possible term that applies is this:
You agree to only create petitions consistent with the limited purpose of the We the People platform, which is to allow individuals to petition the Administration to take action on a range of issues — to address a problem, support or oppose a proposal, or otherwise change or continue federal government policy or actions.
In that case only the person who created the petition is in violation. The broad interest in signing the petition is a sign that there is an issue that should be looked at. And indeed there is - the undue impact that prosecutorial overreach can have thanks to our broken plea bargaining system.
I also note that 1.5 years to respond does not fit my notion of "timely" that the platform promised us...
(At a guess they waited to respond to a bunch of these until after an election cycle finished and new legislators were signed in. Best way to guarantee of both low publicity and that anyone outraged will forget about it before any future vote.
[+] [-] couchdive|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Normati|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] synesso|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayleno|11 years ago|reply
Edit: It was educational, emotional, and enlightening to see what he went through to make the world a better place. Also it's scary to see how much the government can get away with. .. Makes you think.
[+] [-] jimtla|11 years ago|reply
It's likely that nobody will ever read my feedback, but if enough people respond then maybe somebody will. In any case, here is my feedback.
Please provide any additional comments about the We the People petitions system:
The technology worked fine, but the response was utterly vacuous and without empathy.
Aaron Schwartz took his own life almost exactly two years ago. He was a leader, a visionary, and a friend to many of the people in our community. Most importantly he was a person trying to live his life.
Aaron was subjected to unjust and vicious prosecution for an act of peaceful civil disobedience. That prosecution lead directly to his death. He received a death sentence for downloading academic journals.
This is not a petition about "openness" and "economic growth". This is not about ensuring that "the Internet remains a free and open platform." Hell, it's not even about firing Steve Heymann for his actions. It's about the way we choose how to prosecute civil disobedience (and the way we choose not to prosecute murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner). It's about a justice system that feels increasingly unjust.
Mostly, though, it's about the death of our friend. We'd like an apology for his death, but if you're not willing to do that, at least acknowledge the value of his life. Sympathy is not enough.
[+] [-] vpeters25|11 years ago|reply
I can almost bet Carmen Ortiz' name has been thrown to the hat for career advance nominations (federal judge, justice department) only to be immediately dismissed by white house staffers because "the internet would bury us"
[+] [-] gamblor956|11 years ago|reply
That said, the internet has very little to do with her future. The Schwartz case, legally and ethically will have little effect on her career. She has a long and sordid history of not respecting plea deals and of exaggerating drug ties in forfeiture cases. Consequently, she already faced an uphill battle in ever being seriously considered for a judgeship, and she had essentially no chance of receiving a recommendation from the ABA judicial candidate evaluation committee. Like most US Attorneys, she will either go into politics or into a very lucrative position with a law firm as a white collar defense attorney.
[+] [-] throwaway90446|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PostOnce|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempodox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyleblarson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IvyMike|11 years ago|reply
Look, I sympathize with this a little--these petitions imply more than they ever deliver. But realistically if you want to force any significant change it's going to take money, time, and a lot more effort.
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] desireco42|11 years ago|reply
I am not a president, so I can't publicly disgrace prosecutor, but if I was, I totally would, as her office bullied Aaron Swartz and pushed him over the edge.
That is all.
[+] [-] chasing|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crucini|11 years ago|reply
I reckon that the intern who read the thing got a laugh from it.
[+] [-] maxerickson|11 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8855367