Re: My PACER post for VoxPopuLII

[Aaron Swartz <xx@aaronsw.com>]

the vast majority of it is whiteout, but it is in my to-scan pile. the
only other remotely substantive thing I can think of were some
grumbles about getting Amazon to comply with the grand jury subpoena
to get my IP (and some concomitant confusion about AWS -- one DOJ
lawyer says "Isn't that a backup service?")

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Carl Malamud <xxxxxxx@media.org> wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>