Slashdot Mirror
Have Questions For MIT's Aaron Swartz Review?
theodp writes "Explaining that it believes 'the most important questions are the ones that will come from the MIT community,' MIT announced that it won't be accepting questions from outsiders for its President-ordered 'review' of the events that preceded the suicide of Aaron Swartz. But if you feel the 25 questions asked thus far don't cover all the bases, how about posting additional ones in the comments where MIT'ers can see them and perhaps repost to the MIT site some that they feel deserve answers? Do it soon — MIT President Rafael Reif will be returning any day now from Davos, where he sat on a panel with Bill Gates, who coincidentally once found himself in hot water over unauthorized computer access. 'They weren't sure how mad they should be about it,' Gates explained in a 2010 interview, 'because we hadn't really caused any damage, but it wasn't a good thing. Computer hacking was literally just being invented at the time, and so fortunately we got off with a bit of a warning.'"
Related: text has been published of public domain advocate Carl Malamud's remarks at Swartz's memorial. Quoting: "Aaron wasn't a lone wolf, he was part of an army, and I had the honor of serving with him for a decade. Aaron was part of an army of citizens that believes democracy only works when the citizenry are informed, when we know about our rights—and our obligations."
"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty," is what MLK said from a Birmingham jail. It's a sentiment I wish would enter the conversation more often when we talk about how to do civil disobedience the right way.
"He's using a quantum encryption scheme! That'll take hours to break!"
Why is it that you get to review yourself?
Shouldn't an external independent body be doing the reviewing (investigating)?
Isn't there a clear and obvious conflict of interest in you reviewing yourself?