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."
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!
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.
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.
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
Using a sledgehammer to swat a fly is bad, not because the fly doesn't need to be swatted.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
If not, then apparently breaking and entering isn't a crime in your eyes, nor is stealing something you don't have access to.
where have you been the last year or so? the government is breaking and entering our digital lives at a much deeper level and much wider level of population (ie, EVERYONE).
they are not punished for their 'digital break-ins'. why should citizens, then? it seems its ok, in today's world. if the gov can get away with it, then it must be legal. RIGHT?
doublestandard much?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It was not checking out too many books
Right, because Aaron being in possession of them did not stop anyone else from reading them.
He deliberately went into the library, where he didn't have access
He did have access, MIT's network is open and anyone who has access to MIT's network can access JSTOR.
took books which the library had which could only be checked out under strict controls
So strict that they give them out in PDF form to anyone who asks.
Palm trees and 8
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
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
Threatening to charge my girlfriend with being an accessory and put my kid in the hellhole that is the Mass. foster system might drive me to suicide.
Which, ya know, the prosecutor did to Schwartz.
Do you think it is fair to threaten the to take away somebody else's child to get a conviction?
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