User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case

MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case

Posted Jul 31, 2013 6:33 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)
In reply to: MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case by rahulsundaram
Parent article: MIT's report on the Aaron Swartz case

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?

(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds