Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has released
its report on its actions regarding the Aaron Swartz case; the
conclusion is that MIT did nothing wrong. "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.'"
(Log in to post comments)
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 30, 2013 16:59 UTC (Tue) by Tara_Li (subscriber, #26706) [Link]
That's not exactly going to quiet things down, I expect.
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 30, 2013 17:18 UTC (Tue) by zslade (subscriber, #72097) [Link]
So MIT's position is that they did not do what they should have, but they didn't do anything wrong? I guess they are just going to paper over this and wag their fingers at themselves for the public while continuing to delay and enjoin the FOIA request keeping the Secret Service documents secret long after Aaron's death.
It's far too late for justice here, maybe one day we can get truth instead.
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 31, 2013 7:58 UTC (Wed) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
> ...but they didn't do anything wrong?
Some people equate "nothing wrong" with "nothing against the law". This is a very, very, very convenient excuse.
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 30, 2013 17:27 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
MIT being neutral in this case was a mistake. Period. Instead of wrangling their hands and mincing words trying to admit it without admitting it, they should just take the steps necessary to avoid similar circumstances in the future.
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 31, 2013 6:33 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
It's kind of weird that it argues they were "neutral" in so many places when at the same time the question of their cooperation being so aggressive as to have been potentially _unlawful_ was realistic enough that they felt they needed to address it. Arguably if they had been completely neutral they would have responded only by subpoena (on either side) and provided all information to both the prosecution and the defense.
Likewise, the invocation of the Star Simpson breadboard incident as reason for a neutrality policy seemed really odd... a little glimpse into the inhumanity of institutional thinking. Was it really so unclear why people were angry with MIT in the Star case?
There are two interesting questions there which they should have been asking the MIT community to self-reflect on: Were MIT's actions actually consistent with their policy of neutrality, and is a policy of neutrality an appropriate coarse of action?
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 30, 2013 17:34 UTC (Tue) by Rubberman (guest, #70320) [Link]
"Compilation of the report, “MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz,” was led by Hal Abelson, the Class of 1922 Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, at the request of MIT President L. Rafael Reif in January. In conducting his review, Abelson was joined by MIT economist and Institute Professor emeritus Peter Diamond; attorney Andrew Grosso, a former assistant U.S. attorney; and MIT assistant provost for administration Douglas Pfeiffer, who provided staff support for the review panel."
You cannot investigate yourself. It is outrageous that MIT primarily used staff and previous staff members to do this report! Shame on them! The EFF, FSF, and other affected parties that were not involved with MIT should have been on this panel. They may well have come up with the same conclusions, but I'm sure there would have been some much more rigorous finger pointing...
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 30, 2013 19:08 UTC (Tue) by garrison (subscriber, #39220) [Link]
Actually, Hal Abelson is on the Board of Directors of FSF.
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 30, 2013 22:56 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
I was going to point that out. It's about the most credibilising factor there.
One argument for relying on MIT people is that they'll face less resistance in their investigation. People can level with the investigators and speak a bit freer. If the goal was to identify and punish culprits, then independent investigators are needed, but when the goal is to see what went wrong in the system / dynamics / culture, then frank discussions are more important.
I've no opinion on whether this approach was right or wrong here. Just pointing those things out.
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 31, 2013 12:35 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Identifying and punishing the culpable is a matter for law enforcement agencies and the justice system and so independence is only a concern when those suspected are themselves parts of that system (e.g. the practice of UK police forces providing the manpower to investigate incidents involving other forces for the Independent Police Complaints Commission). So this report certainly wasn't about culpability per se.
However the only alternative that I can see is a report focused on preventing future harm. This report's authors were for whatever reason reluctant to do that, it seems to stop short of making any concrete recommendations, limiting itself to asking open questions. Anybody can ask questions and a useful report into this case should have done much more, either come back with either a categorical rejection of the idea that MIT should have handled this better or a clear list of things that ought to change.
It is unfortunate, but perhaps inevitable, that the authors weren't given any authority within MIT to actually insist on such changes, but an enforcement power is not needed, the fact of having recommended the changes would itself at least give forces for good within MIT something to rally behind.
The report's authors also did not have any legal protection. People investigating a serious accident for the government usually work under a shield which prevents their work (intended to prevent future harm) from being used instead in prosecutions or lawsuits related to the events being investigated. Even in the lawsuit happy US the NTSB's reports are forbidden from being used as evidence in a civil suit. Without this shield there is a chilling effect on the investigation.
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 30, 2013 18:29 UTC (Tue) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482) [Link]
The result itself is no surprise.
I support open access but I also understand that massive downloading could cause some trouble.
The problem is that the trouble seems too intense.
MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case Posted Jul 30, 2013 19:15 UTC (Tue) by cypherpunks (guest, #1288) [Link]
This whole thing is a black mark on the institute, and a damn far cry from the "All Tech men carry batteries" of the MIT that once was. In my opinion, of course.
What does that have to do with it? Posted Jul 30, 2013 21:15 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Why does it matter 'that the defendant was an accomplished and well-known contributor to Internet technology'? Doesn't the law apply equally to everyone, no matter how famous?
Similarly, since when was it MIT's job to judge which laws are 'poorly drafted and questionable'?
What does that have to do with it? Posted Jul 31, 2013 1:51 UTC (Wed) by dilinger (subscriber, #2867) [Link]
"Doesn't the law apply equally to everyone"
Wha..Ha. Hahah. HAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHHAH!
Good one! You had me going for a second there.
What does that have to do with it? Posted Jul 31, 2013 1:55 UTC (Wed) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404) [Link]
>Similarly, since when was it MIT's job to judge which laws are 'poorly drafted and questionable'?
Hrm.. I think it's every persons responsibility to judge when laws are poorly drafted and questionable, and devote a proportionate amount of energy to fixing unjust ones. Not that I always meet that standard, but MIT does have that responsibility - at the very least, as one of the putatively injured parties, it could have filed an amicus brief or something (IANAL) if it judged the legal systems reaction to be too harsh...
I grew up in small town, and knew a couple kids who accidentally set their neighbors tree on fire. Given that they woke up the neighbors to let them know, called 911, and put the fire out with a garden hose before the fire department got there, and planted a new tree.. when the local court system wanted to charge them with "detonating a terrorist device" (this is well before 2001), the neighbors basically were like "WTF? No, they're kids", and the case did not go far.
I think we all have a responsibility to keep the justice system in check, particularly so when we are the injured party.
What does that have to do with it? Posted Jul 31, 2013 9:22 UTC (Wed) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link]
The "Since when is it my job to question the authorities?" stance was good for maintaining Hitler Germany with an embarassingly low ratio of people who actually did worse things than "just following orders".
The MIT is supposed to be a hive of the smartest people in the U.S.A., and that's the image they are trying to project. Artificial dumbness does not fit with that theme.
If anybody has a responsibility to think about the consequences of their acts, it is the purported smartest and brightest.
If they don't bother applying their intelligence to arrive at more than redneck morals, it is better to dissolve the institution.
Intelligence unchecked by morals is a danger to society.
What does that have to do with it? Posted Jul 31, 2013 15:19 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
> If anybody has a responsibility to think about the consequences of their acts, it is the purported smartest and brightest.
This is a fantastic statement, and the critical point from which all responsibility derives. The ability to predict the consequences of ones actions creates the requirement to do so because it creates the responsibility for the foreseeable outcomes of those actions. The real difficulty with responsibility is in assessing the ability for one to predict the consequences of their actions and whether they were foreseeable at the time when the assessor has the benefit of perfect hindsight. In the case of MIT the additional intelligence creates additional responsibility and diminishes the protection of an unpredictable consequence.
Is anyone arguing that MIT staff knew or should have known that by allowing the harassment of Aaron Schwartz that his life was in danger? Or is it that by allowing the harassment they created a dangerous and unpredictable situation where any number of bad things could happen?
What does that have to do with it? Posted Jul 31, 2013 19:22 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
As has been pointed out on Groklaw, Aaron was charged with "unauthorised access".
At NO POINT WHATSOEVER does there appear to have been any attempt by either MIT or the prosecutor to find out whether Aaron was or was not authorised.
And given that MIT seems to have had an "access is open to anyone" policy, it seems highly likely that Aaron's access was not unuauthorised (note the careful use of the double negative, and not the positive).
This is the gaping hole the prosecutors drove through to charge him.
Cheers,
What does that have to do with it? Posted Aug 1, 2013 21:22 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
I don't think they had to predict he might kill himself to know that himb being prosecuted was bad and that them stopping that would be good... There ain't much more to morality than 'good' and 'bad', so that was all they needed to realize and act on.
If an action makes the world a better place, you're morally obliged to do it to the extend it makes the world better. And if an action makes the world a worse place, you're morally obliged to refrain from it to the extend it makes things worse...
And for what makes the world worse or better, I really like the 'veil of ignorance' by Rawls as a measure of what is good or bad. That and the valleys and peaks of the moral landscape from Sam Harris.
|
|||||||||||||