Re: My PACER post for VoxPopuLII

[Carl Malamud <xxxx@media.org>]

I don't want to publish them, I'd like to read them to see what they say.

If you guys are going to keep dining out on this story, I think it is only fair 
that you share what you find out about the feds.  The reports from DOJ 
attorneys are especially relevant.

On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> i'll try to get the FOIA docs scanned at some point, but i'm trying to
> lie low at the moment
> 
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Schultze <xxxxxxx@princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Yeah, they know about me because the fucking NYT published my name even
>> though I asked them not to.
>> 
>> What a waste of federal resources.
>> 
>> Nice FOIA work Aaron.
>> 
>> On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Carl Malamud wrote:
>>> 
>>> they still claim they have no file on me in response to my foia request.
>>> 
>>> can I see your foia results?
>>> 
>>> thanks!
>>> 
>>> Carl
>>> 
>>> On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I should note that last week I got some FOIA documents from DOJ where
>>>> they suggest that Schultze was my co-conspirator. (They redact his
>>>> name but they describe him as a guy who gave a talk to the Berkman
>>>> Center about how PACER should be free and note that I live nearby the
>>>> Center -- so DOJ figured out what the FBI didn't. Intergovernmental
>>>> uncoordination wins again!)
>>>> 
>>>> DOJ Attorney: "I would venture to guess that the PACER compromise was
>>>> conceived and carried out by Swartz and [REDACTED] in furtherance of
>>>> the open access to documents projects that both are involved in. I
>>>> wouldn't be shocked if they freely admitted they did it and asserted
>>>> some sort of defense based on their belief that government document
>>>> should be available free of charge and/or that they merely automated
>>>> the free PACER access being provided by the US Courts."
>>>> 
>>>> and then, months later:
>>>> 
>>>> DOJ Attorney: "We've had several fairly lengthy discussions internally
>>>> here at CCIPS over the last few days re the PACER investigation. Our
>>>> assessment, based on what we know at this point, is that this doesn't
>>>> seem like a great case to pursue with a full investigative effort and
>>>> an eye towards prosecution. There are a number of reasons fpr that
>>>> assessment and some alternatives for addressing the conduct..."
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, I've never named anyone else who was involved in what I did, but
>>>> let me know if you want to take credit.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Steve Schultze <xxxxxxx@princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hey, I've written a post about PACER for VoxPopuLII.  I basically tell
>>>>> the history of the fight to remove the paywall.  I describe some of our
>>>>> early antics, so I wanted to run it by you before it goes live.  Let me 
>>>>> know
>>>>> if anything should be censored, or if I'm missing anything important.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For some reason the hyperlinks didn't come through on the PDF, but there
>>>>> are a bunch of them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>