[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Message 00714: Re: call me ....

with all due respect, its not "their" loss; its america's. I don't want that on my conscience

On Apr 15, 2009 8:56 PM, "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com> 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" <carl@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.


On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote: > sorry, I was on a bus back from the sunlight m...