Re: My PACER post for VoxPopuLII

[Aaron Swartz <xx@aaronsw.com>]

what is?

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Carl Malamud <xxxxxxx@media.org> wrote:
> ok. thanks. just keep me in the loop. that's one of the things the judges 
> always ask me about.
>
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>