Message 00713: Re: call me ....
understood, but I'm not going to let them hang you out to dry. there
are 3 branches of government, and if the work we did on judiciary
makes me unsuitable for legislative or executive, that is there
problem. We're not going to fold on PACER just because I want a job.
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:56 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:
also, you shouldn't worry about me. I'm happy to take the fallout if
it comes. you need to stay focused on the gpo job. if you get that,
it will be way better for the public interest than any of this
little stuff. that's the important thing
On Apr 15, 2009 8:41 PM, "Carl Malamud" <xxxxxxx@media.org> wrote:
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 m...
A service of Public.Resource.Org.