MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#2Direct link to report: http://swartz-report.mit.edu/
Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#3The problem with MIT's neutral stance is highlighted in the report and the one which I find particularly interesting.
However, the report says that MIT’s neutrality stance did not consider
factors including “that the defendant was an accomplished and well-known
contributor to Internet technology”; that the law under which he was charged
“is a poorly drafted and questionable criminal law as applied to modern
computing”; and that “the United States was pursuing an overtly aggressive
prosecution.” While MIT’s position “may have been prudent,” the report says,
“it did not duly take into account the wider background” of policy issues
“in which MIT people have traditionally been passionate leaders.”
Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#4Interesting dropping this 2h before the PFC Manning verdict, and during the week of hacker conferences.
Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#5Those of us who believe MIT deserves some blame for subsequent events do so because they could have asked the prosecution to desist, as JSTOR did, or at least downgrade the charges to a misdemeanor, but chose not to. That amounted to an implicit endorsement of the prosecution, which would have been difficult to pursue without the support of either MIT or JSTOR.
The report appears to find that MIT should not have changed its neutral stance, which is disappointing, and I'm skeptical. Here's a quote (IV.B.3):
Given the lead prosecutor’s comments to MIT’s outside
counsel (see section III.C.3), MIT statements would
seemingly have had little impact, and even risk making
matters worse—although this information was not shared
with Swartz’s advocates.
Update: Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Aaron's partner at the time of his death, has released a statement. Full disclosure: Taren's a friend, Aaron was a friend, and I'm not exactly a disinterested party here.
http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/56881327662/mit-report-is-a-w...
Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#6The problem with MIT's neutral stance is highlighted in the report and the one which I find particularly interesting. However, the report says that MIT’s neutrality stance did not consider factors including “that the defendant was an accomplished and well-known contributor to Internet technology”; that the law under which he was charged “is a poorly drafted and questionable criminal law as applied to modern computing…
Well, that kind of stuff is all over the report.
We note that no one from MIT called the Secret Service.
The MIT Police contacted the Cambridge detective by calling him on his individual cell phone.
The special agent became involved because he accompanied the Cambridge detective.
(Also note that, presumably due to their neutral stance, MIT intervened in court cases asking for the release of documents produced on Swartz and the case)
Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#7Interesting dropping this 2h before the PFC Manning verdict, and during the week of hacker conferences.
This is more coincidence than conspiracy. People look for patterns where they do not exist.
Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#8Those of us who believe MIT deserves some blame for subsequent events do so because they could have asked the prosecution to desist, as JSTOR did, or at least downgrade the charges to a misdemeanor, but chose not to. That amounted to an implicit endorsement of the prosecution, which would have been difficult to pursue without the support of either MIT or JSTOR. The report appears to find that MIT should not have chan…
> The report appears to find that MIT should not have changed its neutral stance, which is disappointing, and I'm skeptical.
The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done, as it states many times, such as in the last paragraph of the Introduction section:
> It was not part of our charge in this review to draw conclusions, but rather to determine facts and to consider what can be learned from this tragedy. Part V accordingly poses questions, not answers.
and again in the 4th paragraph of Section V:
> The Review Panel was not asked to make recommendations in our report, but rather to suggest how MIT might learn from this history.
Your comment misrepresents the report's purpose as well as its content. I think the report deserves a more careful reading.
EDIT: Personally, I recommend reading the Conclusion section (p. 100) and searching for the string "neutral" in that section.
Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#9Those of us who believe MIT deserves some blame for subsequent events do so because they could have asked the prosecution to desist, as JSTOR did, or at least downgrade the charges to a misdemeanor, but chose not to. That amounted to an implicit endorsement of the prosecution, which would have been difficult to pursue without the support of either MIT or JSTOR. The report appears to find that MIT should not have chan…
> The report appears to find that MIT should not have changed its neutral stance, which is disappointing, and I'm skeptical. The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done, as it states many times, such as in the last paragraph of the Introduction section: > It was not part of our charge in this review to draw conclusions, but rather to determine facts and to consider what can be learned from…
I'm skimming quickly for the gist, and certainly didn't intend to misrepresent its contents. That being said, I'm not going to change what I wrote; that quote presents a value judgment, one that I'm skeptical of, and since the broader report doesn't appear to admit to any responsibility for subsequent events, I think it's disappointing.
I have a lot of respect for the authors of the report, and I trust their integrity. But if judgement wasn't in their remit, then it was a poor remit.
Note also that MIT's president seems to believe that the report constitutes a free pass:
From studying this review of MIT's role, I am
confident that MIT's decisions were reasonable,
appropriate and made in good faith.Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case
#10Those of us who believe MIT deserves some blame for subsequent events do so because they could have asked the prosecution to desist, as JSTOR did, or at least downgrade the charges to a misdemeanor, but chose not to. That amounted to an implicit endorsement of the prosecution, which would have been difficult to pursue without the support of either MIT or JSTOR. The report appears to find that MIT should not have chan…
> The report appears to find that MIT should not have changed its neutral stance, which is disappointing, and I'm skeptical. The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done, as it states many times, such as in the last paragraph of the Introduction section: > It was not part of our charge in this review to draw conclusions, but rather to determine facts and to consider what can be learned from…
> The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done
Well then what's the point of the report other than allowing MIT to wash its hands? Great timing on the release as well since it will likely be forgotten and hidden due to another big event today.