Re: call me ....

[Carl Malamud <xxxx@media.org>]

np, just want to make sure you're paying attention.

i'd like to know what your lawyer comes up with.  he and I might want  
to talk ... everybody is fishing for what the legal theory is, we're  
all worried about FBI trying to entrap you (or me) into "admitting"  
some technicality.

my current theory is that the AO came in with a pre-cooked legal  
theory and that DOJ didn't do their usual review ... normally, you  
don't send FBI out without a legal case, we're thinking DOJ abdicated  
because the AO must know what they're talking about.

But, nobody understands why they'd be so stupid as to do this ... John  
Schwartz is in the loop now and if he calls you, you should just be  
honest.

The big issue is hacking ... I emphasized no decryption, reverse  
engineering or anything else ... this was not a clever hack, it was a  
strategy carefully advanced with the pacer.resource.org FAQ and then  
very carefully analyzed each step of the way.  And, at each step,  
there was no guidance from the courts.  We looked very carefully for  
stop signs and didn't see any.  Granted, they weren't expecting 0-80  
in 60 seconds, but at each step we looked for guidance.

Carl

On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> sorry, I was on a bus back from the sunlight mtg and cell coverage  
> was spotty. back home now and fully focused.
>
> I really appreciate everything you're doing. is there anything I can  
> do to help?
>
> spoke to my lawyer, he's also going to make some calls
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2009 7:44 PM, "Carl Malamud" <xxxxxxx@media.org> wrote:
>
> How come you haven't answered any of my email?  This is a big deal,  
> you need to stay in touch.  Becky told me about watchdog, sorry to  
> hear about that.  But, I also need you focused on PACER for a while  
> here.
>
> Carl