The Lonesome Death of Aaron Swartz

“Information is power.  But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves.” 

Aaron Swartz

So begins the dramatic story of a computer whiz kid’s untimely death and the overzealous prosecutor’s tactics in the case.  

Aaron Swartz, a young and brilliant programmer gained fame on the internet for co-developing the Rich Site Summary (RSS) which allows users to receive and read timely updates from web sites and blogs.  A bit of a rebel, Swartz was also a proponent of open access of everything on the Internet, and founded Demand Progress, which called for an end to Internet censorship bills (such as, SOPA/PIPA, which he played a key role in defeating).

Swartz’s crime?  On January 6, 2011 he arrested by the Feds for supposedly downloading thousands of academic journal articles from JSTOR.  The Federal prosecutors alleged they were worth millions of dollars.  And what is JSTOR?

Here’s a good description of JSTOR by science journalist Yoichi Shimatsu:


“The JSTOR archive is not owned or based at MIT, as media reports suggest, but is registered at the Network Connections server farm in Herndon, Maryland.  JSTOR is under the control of a nonprofit organization called ITHAKA, whose board of directors includes top university administrators and the W.W. Norton book publisher.”

Ironically, Aaron Swartz had a paid subscription to JSTOR, so he was hardly stealing anything.  JSTOR got all of the journals back, none were released out in the wild, none were sold by Swartz, and they never pressed any charges (though MIT did).  The Feds went hell for leather after Swartz with a possible 35-year prison sentence and over a million dollars in fines.  One thing that Swartz hated about JSTOR is that all of the authors of the scholarly journals are not paid, but their publishers are.  Lost in all of this is what Swartz was going to do with the journals.

The devil in red.  U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz

Carmen Ortiz
And who was the lead on this?  Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts. Christian Stork in his article, Carmen Ortiz Sordid Rap Sheet give a quick overview on one paragraph of Ortiz’s actions:

“Despite JSTOR’s subsequent securing of the ‘stolen’ content and refusal to press charges, Swartz was arrested by the feds and charged originally with four felony counts under the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. On those charges alone, Swartz was facing a possible 35-year sentence and over $1,000,000 in fines. Just three months ago, a ‘Superseding Indictment’ filed in the case by the U.S. attorney’s office upped the felony count from four to 13. If convicted, Swartz was looking at possibly over 50 years in prison: a conceivable life sentence.”

Stork goes on to document some of the Carmen Ortiz’s intrigues as a U.S. Attorney, particularly her attempt to take the motel property of one, Russ Caswell under the criminal forfeiture laws.  It seems there were 15 drug busts at the motel over a 14-year period.  According to Stork, a DEA agent examines property documents looking for real estate with numerous drug busts to basically seize, presumably in the name of the “public good.”  This is an example of why the criminal forfeiture laws are so wrong–it results in the government coveting property and basically stealing it.  In this case a seedy motel valued at over a million dollars, made even sweeter since it had no liens on it.  And even more unfair, just up the street from Coswell’s motel is a Motel 6, with far more drug arrests on that property.  You catch the drift...Motel 6 is a large corporate chain, they are the untouchables.  It’s the little guy they want to go after.  And Ortiz has a pattern of such schemes.  

The case is ongoing but shows a pattern of Carmen Ortiz’s nasty prosecutorial  behavior.  Namely, to come down heavy on the small fry.  

Back To Aaron
The curious thing is, why did they come down so hard on this guy?  What he did was minor compared to other goings on and it makes one wonder what kind of case the Fed’s had that work result in a conviction.  If he is guilty of anything it was trespass in a university server closet.  Aaron started out with 4 counts but Carmen Ortiz upped it to 13.  What?  And all for files that were returned to the owner with no charges filed by the owner.   It doesn’t make sense.   It should be noted that Swartz never pled guilty to any of the charges nor would accept a plea deal.  The Feds hate that.  It means they will have to work so harder to prove the charges against a defendant.  

On January 14 Aaron Swartz was found hanging in his apartment.  Curiously, another hacking case covered by a Carmen Ortiz colleague, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, also resulted in a suicide of a teenage hacker Jonathan James, who was an unindicted co-conspirator in an earlier computer hacking case.  I’m just saying...

If Swartz was so confident in winning his case by not opting to plea bargain then would he despair enough to hang himself?  It’s been claimed he had a history of mental problems but I haven’t uncovered anything on that yet.  But that’s the usual M.O. for these situations.  The wicked have learned the best way to murder somebody is either to make it appear as an accident or a suicide. I should be noted that friends that saw him the day before his death said he was talkative and smiling.

The Book Has Been Thrown
No doubt, the government came down very hard on Aaron Swartz.  Severe enough warren concern and heavy criticism of Ortiz’s actions.  So far I’ve read some interesting theories as to what really went down.  One, written by Yoichi Shimatsu (previously mentioned) is that Swartz in the server closet had stumbled over a massive child porn network being run through MIT.  That’s pretty far out.  Shimatsu, writing from Hong Kong, names one man who I won’t mention here, as it’s an open invitation for libel in this country.  Just read his article listed in my sources to find out who.

Never the less, for the authorities to go after Swartz like this does give the appearance of something more to the story, some behind the scenes machinations that Swartz stumbled upon.

I think the trouble with people such as Aaron Swartz, Gary Webb, or even Andrew Breitbart is they want to play ball with the Big Boys, speaking truth to power.  But they don’t have a backup plan. I would have a path of flight arranged with a packed bag, stay close to home, avoid strangers, and possibly have access to a weapon.  Being a public figure is no longer protection from serious harm.  And being paranoid for a person like a Swartz or a Breitbart could be healthy.  It’s not like these guys can ride in with the white hats on and win the day in a fair fight.  Do they really think the Big Boys wouldn’t dare to go after them?  

They are the untouchables my friends, not you.


Addendum 2/20/13
FBI tracked Aaron Swartz, new files show.  LINK


Addendum 2/6/13
Photos of server closet that Aaron Swartz is supposed to have used.
LINK


Addendum 1/26/13
On 1/25/13, U.S. Magistrate Judge Judith Dein tossed out the Russ Caswell motel case.  Yay!  LINK


Sources

Aaron Swartz web site with links.
http://www.aaronsw.com/

Christian Stork.
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sheet/

Freedom Rider: The State Killing of Aaron Swartz by Margaret Kimberley.  A highly recommended read.
http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-state-killing-aaron-swartz

Yoichi Shimatsu.
http://rense.com/general95/swartz.html

Alleged downloads by Aaron Swartz. 
http://cryptome.org/aaron-swartz-series.htm

Notes on his death.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/aaron-swartz-heroism-suicide1

Carmen Ortiz’s office doubles down.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/ortiz_says_suicide_will_not_change_handling_cases

Feds go overboard in prosecuting information activist.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/feds-go-overboard-in-prosecuting-information-activist/

Ortiz’s Husband makes snarky comments on Twitter.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/16/tom-dolan-husband-of-aaron-swartz-prosecutor-attacking-swartz-family-on-twitter/

Open Rebellion At iStockphoto

In 2012 I posted an article regarding the purchase of iStockphoto by Getty Images in 2006 and how rocky that business relationship has been over the intervening years.  

It has now taken a turn for the worse.  

The latest outrage amounts to a behind the scenes deal between Getty and Google to provide rights free images to Google Drive service.  This deal was in the works since October and November of 2012 but never announced to iStock’s contributors until one photographer, Sean Locke uncovered it and posted the specifics on the site forum.  This in turned, forced management to post an announcement with more details, none of which calmed the fears of contributors concerned about their content being devalued.  

To the dismay of many, the deal is fairly one sided in Getty and Google’s favor.  These images are free to all comers and while contributors were paid up to $12 for each image, all normal licensing agreements went discarded, as did the metadata in the files documenting copyrights.  These images can now be used in any commercial manner by whomever downloads it.  Once upon a time, models were assured strict policing of their likenesses being used inappropriately.  Not so with this Google arrangement.  Some photographers are also concerned as some of the free images feature pictures of children and some photographers use their own children as models.  Also, some fear a model suing them if they see their image used wrongly.  Much angst over that issue as with many other details.  

As one contributor stated in the forum discussion, “Why should I have my photos here for sale when anybody can have them free at Google?  Why indeed?  It should be pointed out that no contributor was given the option to opt out of this mess and management is clear that an “opt out” would never be given.  Yet many beg for it as if that will work.  It would be fair but these corporate goons have no feelings for such things as that.

With the artist supplier’s agreement (i.e. contract, ASA) so vaguely written with plenty of fancy lawyer talk, Getty is free do to as they please with the photographer’s, illustrator’s, and videographer's content.  It’s worded in such a way, that if they wanted to, they could place a photographer’s entire portfolio up for free at Google.  As one poster pointed out, the ASA may be breached because content is to be sold to the end user.  Since Google is not using said content but instead, posting it on a platform for free distribution all over the world, it would appear this is a contractual violation.  But alas, I am no lawyer.  Contributors are paid of course, but it’s a  one-time payment so Getty can say, with a straight face, that everybody was reimbursed as a result of this screwy deal.  

Ultimately, none of the makes any business sense and with Getty sneaking around behind contributor’s backs with these deals, which illustrates gross corporate malfeasance.  Many iStock members are in shock of this development, feel they can no long trust their agent/distributor, feel disrespected, and are ready to move on.

As contributor Leeavison pointed out:

“How on earth can this benefit contributors!! The entire rights to an image given away forever for $12. No back-link from Google, no artist acknowledgement. There is absolutely no benefit to contributing artists whatsoever as far as I can see!”

It really is outrageous what Getty did with this stunt, without the image creators being informed about what was going on, no permission asked for, licensing agreements tossed out the window, and copyrights ignored.  The hubris on display here is as great any despotic monarchy treating their subjects as they would their livestock.

D-Day - February 2
So what is a person to do against these corporate titans?  Many are openly ready to cast off their exclusivity and seek other agencies to sell through.  They have set a date of February 2nd to do a mass deleting of images from their portfolios and begin the process of shutting down.  However, I’ve have seen few of the major sellers announcing they will be doing such a thing.  Since I am a contributor as well, I’ll wait this one out and see how the pieces fall in place.

As I said in my last article on this issue, Getty did not buy iStockphoto with the intent of growing the brand.  The big fish eats the little fish.  The same is true in business, where greed is the hunger and it’s never sated. Getty considers iStock image makers to be a bunch of crowd sourced fodder to do with as they please.  As each controversy unfolds a new level of low is reached.  It’s comical in a way for them to bring on various “officials” some of which nobody has ever seen before, to try and explain each maneuver.  Some of the twisted logic employed is absurd, as if speaking such words would actually change reality and history.  But the sheep are not as believing as they once were with the multitude of broken promises that have occurred.  

About time.

Addendum 2/11/13
Sean Locke, the photographer that first posted information on the Getty/Google deal, in a shocking development, has been terminated from iStockphoto on 2/8.  He will no longer be able to sell his images there anymore.  Check out his blog posting for all of this played out HERE.  More on this in a new posting coming soon.


Addendum 1/22/13
So far, the projected number files to be deleted D-Day, February 2 by contributors at iStock is at over 30,000+.


Addendum 1/17/13
It should be noted that the files in this deal are mostly coming from iStock contributors.  None of Getty’s RM files are being used. iStock image creators are bearing the brunt of this.


Addendum 1/15/13
After posting this article today, iStock responded with a post from a Mr. Erin, one of their obscure admins.  He basically reposted some earlier bullet points regarding the Getty/Google deal which will most like do nothing to calm anyone’s fears.  Basically, nothing that image creators were concerned about, such as model release restrictions, no “opt out” for contributors, and so on.  There was a promise to look into copyright infringement and missing metadata, but their promises are a stall and often unfulfilled.  I don’t know why they bothered.  The issues that concerned people the most were not resolved in any way by today’s posting.  As usual, the administration is inept to say the least when it comes to communicating to the very people that make microstock tick.  

Sources
iStock announcement of the deal:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1

Don’t Get Fooled Again...

Apparently, an easy thing to experience in the Internet Age.

Currently making the rounds is a story that in the Batman: The Dark Knight Rises film, the same film where the tragic shooting occurred in Colorado in the summer of 2012, is a scene where the Police Commissioner character points to map and the words, Sandy Hook, the elementry school where another shocking and deadly shooting occurred is written on the map.  How is that for a strange coincidence?

And it gets even crazier. The next thing reported is that the movie’s property manager Scott Getzinger was from Newtown, the city where the shooting happened.  He was reportedly killed in an automobile accident there in April of 2012. Oh...spooky!  And what does all of this mean?  Nobody ever says.

The trouble with this story is that it’s all bogus.  I have this film on the DVD, the full theatrical release that was manufactured before the tragic Connecticut massacre occurred on December 12, 2012.  This alleged scene does not appear at any time in the movie, and I’ve scanned the film multiple times.  There is no scene of the Police Commissioner looking at a map at any time.  Any map.  Now, a police officer does and you can see the picture above of the map that’s in the film.  Nowhere will you see Sandy Hook printed on that map.

To add to the confusion there is a video on Youtube featuring the map with Sandy Hook written on it.  See the picture of this map below?  It’s not in the movie.  There are other references in this clip to Sandy Hook and they are not in the DVD either.  Perhaps in the Blu-ray version?  I think not.  Both have the same runtime of 165 minutes. I suggest these are prop’s that were never used in the film.  Somebody imaged them for the hoax.  In fact, there is no video online that shows the police commissioner character pointing to a map of any kind.

So what we have here is another Internet hoax or better, a psyop to get the masses distracted.  Some people think the Sandy Hook shooting was a staged event to promote gun control.  So what happens?  Somebody, either on his own or some employees of an agency produces a fake video with clips not seen in the original film.  And, wa-la!  A connection to a far greater plot. Disinformation has its uses you know.

Addendum 1/10/13
Journalist Jon Rappoport is making the rounds with the Sandy Hook hoax. He was on the Clyde Lewis show, Ground Zero tonight.  It’s amazing to me how Rappoport, a journalist with some notable publication credits on his resume can print crap like this on his web site without double-checking sources to begin with.  That’s journalism 101.  He apparently never saw the film.  In fact, one of his sources is an unnamed author on BeforeItsNews.com. 

Addendum 1/11/13
The YouTube link below has been taken down.

Sources

Jon Rappoport

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/one-more-long-shot-coincidence-sandy-hook-dark-knight-rises/

BeforeItsNews.com

http://beforeitsnews.com/unexplained-phenomena/2013/01/sandy-hook-massacre-coincidence-99-dark-knight-rises-prop-master-scott-getzinger-died-in-april-2012-car-accident-from-non-life-threatening-injuries-2430934.html

[UPDATE: link taken down] Youtube video supposedly showing Sandy Hook written on a map.  Please note this map is not shown in the theatrical release of the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRECuHM788k