Slashdot Mirror


MIT Attempts To Block Release of Documents In Aaron Swartz Case

Dputiger writes "In the wake of activist Aaron Swartz's suicide, MIT launched an investigation into the circumstances that led to his initial arrest and felony charges. It's now clear that the move was nothing but a face-saving gesture. Moments before the court-ordered release of Swartz's Secret Service file under the Freedom of Information Act, MIT intervened, asking the judge to block the release. Supposedly this is to protect the identities of MIT staff who might be harassed — but government policy is to redact such information already."

12 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Who? by Arkiel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Mmm hmm, mmm hmm. And what ARE the names of the people employed by MIT who helped drive Aaron Swartz to kill himself? I'm not interested in threatening them, I just want to make sure their names are on the Internet and forever associated with the terrible, terrible thing they did.

    1. Re:Who? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly, because when someone installs their own equipment in someone else's closet, tries to hide the fact that they installed the equipment, carfs down oodles and oodles of documents which the general public did not have access to because THEY felt they had the right to decide how the information is used, that person bears no responsibility for their actions.

      It's all on the backs of those who caught the person doing something they didn't have a right to do, not the person committing the crime.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Who? by Arkiel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one is arguing that Aaron Swartz own actions did not contribute to what happened to him. It was suicide, after all. Way to use the all-or-nothing fallacy. Someone is arguing that MIT should not have gotten the government involved, and that there is a pattern of behavior here by them and their employees that should not be rewarded and should, in fact, be punished. I happen to think letting everyone know what these people did is punishment enough.

    3. Re:Who? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right, Aaron should have been held responsible for what he did. However, what he did amounted to the digital equivalent of checking out too many library books. He should have been held responsible for that and made to pay back damages to the victim(s).

      However, I don't believe that his "crimes" should have involved any jail-time whatsoever and I'm surprised by anyone who did think that Aaron was a danger to society and should have been locked up for years.

      So, with people being held responsible for their beliefs and actions, why is MIT not just releasing the information and instead weaseling around the court system?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    4. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If MIT doesn't have anything to hide, they don't need to block the release of the documents. Se how fun it isn't, when it's applied the other way around? Bunch of fucking hypocrites, and they are allowed to continue due to idiots like you.

      It's a fucking shame. And you're a fucking disgrace.

    5. Re:Who? by djmurdoch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rare old books are a limited resource. If he took those, nobody else could use them. That would be stealing.

      Checking out too many books from the library means those books aren't available for other library patrons to check out. That's rude.

      What he did was weaker still. He violated a copyright license. JSTOR had negotiated monopoly rights to copy those articles, and he violated their rules. He probably didn't deprive anyone of anything, though he may have damaged JSTOR by making it harder for them to negotiate rights in the future.

    6. Re:Who? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What he did wast the equivalent of going to closed library, smashing smashing in the window, and then throwing books out the window.

      We can quantify the damage done when a window is smashed. Books that are removed from a library must be replaced or they will be unavailable to patrons; that can be quantified as well.

      Can you quantify the damage Aaron did? I suspect it is somewhere around "13 cents in electricity costs."

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  2. Re: Sorry internet by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And with a sudden diminisging of MIT's cred with many tech people, sadly. Oh well, there are always others ready to pick any people (students or professors) that won't be heading to MIT as a reaction to this.

    MIT's cred with tech people is and has always been about the competence of their educators, the capabilities of their labs and the fact that a degree from MIT is taken at face value to imply a top-notch technical education. That has not changed. Students and professors don't go there for transparency.

  3. Pointless details. Let's look at the meat of it. by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There were a lot of problems with the whole Swartz case. In particular, that his actions were considered grounds for harsher punishment than many murderers and rapists. I don't care about the documents half as much as I care about the fact that our system is so broken that copying data is so disproportionately punished.

    It doesn't even matter if Aaron was right or wrong when the fundamental laws, rules and regulations of the case were so flawed in the first place.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  4. Re:Sorry internet by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And so where exactly is the "transparency"?

    The kid killed himself because he downloaded information that *should* be freely accessible in a "transparent" world. Instead, it's a crime to do what he did, and he was threatened with excessive penalties, because "downloading" is apparently a WORSE crime than murder or rape.

    Where is the "accountability" here, where the punishment should fit the crime? How has this country become so upside-down?

    I agree that the world would not be a better place with vigilante justice, but it needs to be said that, for most people in the US, there really isn't any other kind of justice at all.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  5. You just made that up. by microbox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    where he didn't have access, and took books which the library had which could only be checked out under strict controls

    Bullsh*t. You're just making it up. Swartz was a research fellow at a university with a JSTOR account. That mean he had legal access to them.

    Say, you're not part of Idiot America are you?

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  6. Re: Sorry internet by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It has changed now that they have shown themselves to be as corrupt and self serving as every other education institution.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust