[wmil]

> But, his letter is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to appeal to those who really can make a big difference in how computer crimes are treated (as opposed to pitchforks and shrieking).

I actually disagree completely. Ortiz is a US Attorney. Her office is entirely aware of the legal issues. Trying to calmly inform them is a ridiculous waste of time.

For some reason she decided to launch a hyper agressive prosecution against Swartz. I'm guessing she wanted a big public win to help her political career, and she figured an introverted nerd was an easy target.

Under those circumstances pitchforks and shrieking are the only thing that can stop this from happening in the future.

[jim-greer]

> Under those circumstances pitchforks and shrieking are the only thing that can stop this from happening in the future.

I don't disagree, but we've had plenty of pitchforks and shrieking. A calm, factual, but pointed response in addition won't hurt.

[mpyne]

> I actually disagree completely. Ortiz is a US Attorney. Her office is entirely aware of the legal issues.

Well for starters, legal issues are not computer code, even the law is open to interpretation. Even trained experts in the law are known to disagree as to its meaning, especially for laws as intentionally vague as CFAA.

However, even assuming their expertise in the law, the U.S. Attorney's office are not automatically experts at the technology and what the use of the technology means (as we are so often reminded here on HN).

[doomicon]

Is Andrew Payne naive enough to think he is providing a U.S. Attorney information that she didn't already have? Providing the Chief of the "Cyber Crimes" unit information he didn't already have?

That is why this letter is bunk. Federal Attorney's and Prosecutors are NOT naive to cyber crime, law, punishment, etc. They've been to law school, studied case law, prosecuted cases, worked with law enforcement.

Andrew, stick to investing brother :-)

[ScottBurson]

As taxpayers, we all have the right to express our opinions about how our tax money is being spent. That's what this letter is about -- and very well done, too, I think -- not providing information that Ortiz might have somehow overlooked. Yes, it does summarize the facts of the case as Payne sees them, but that's just for context.