MIT Releases Swartz Report: Instead of Leading, School Was 'Hands-Off'

curtwoodward writes "MIT's long-awaited internal investigation into its handling of the Aaron Swartz prosecution has been released (PDF), and it's massive — about 180 pages, not counting the reams of supporting documents. And although the report's authors say they were told not to draw any conclusions about MIT's actions — really — they still gently criticized the university. Swartz, a well-known activist, killed himself earlier this year while being prosecuted for federal computer crimes after he improperly downloaded millions of academic research articles. MIT remained notably 'hands-off' throughout the case, the internal report notes, despite requests that it defend Swartz or oppose the prosecution, and ample opportunities to show leadership. The report quotes an MIT official: 'MIT didn't do anything wrong; but we didn't do ourselves proud.'" Swartz's partner, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, calls the report a whitewash.

Comments

Gee, I expected different results....!

[icebike]

Can there be any surprise here?
An internal investigation, with nobody sworn in, and no subpoena power, finds the institution that empowers it blameless.

Lets have an investigation of why they wasted the money doing this investigation. No doubt that will find no fault either.

Re:Gee, I expected different results....!

[i kan reed]

Cynical. Very cynical. Not really wrong, but it misses subtlety. In this case we have a government with a heavy-handed response to an active resistance protest. It looks terrible, because it got a political activist arrested for what wasn't intended to do harm. It doesn't matter what others involved did, the blame rests with the DoJ for "cracking down" on a crime that was meant to do no harm.

Re:Gee, I expected different results....!

[sribe]

Why exactly should your college defend you when you comit a crime?

Well, it wasn't even his college...

But what he did should most certainly not be a crime (just a civil tort instead), and he was charge not just with the "crimes" he committed but a number he most certainly did not commit, and MIT was in a position to know for a fact that the charges were wildly exaggerated, and universities are supposed to represent and defend academic freedom, and as an alum I am deeply disappointed in the administration's behavior.

Re:Gee, I expected different results....!

[danceswithtrees]

Forget the masturbatory self-congratulation that is this report. They almost certainly have something to hide. A reporter at Wired submitted a FOIA request for Aaron's Secret Service file. A judge OKed the release of the file but then MIT intervened to block the release!

See http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/mit-swartz-intervene/all/1

Supposedly, it is _extremely_ rare for non-governmental entities to block FOIA requests. There must be something in there that MIT doesn't want to see the light of day.

Re:Gee, I expected different results....!

[tnk1]

MIT has a responsibility to defend someone who broke into one of their closets and installed a device?

Oh sure, academic freedom and all of that.

Seriously, though, I can't even imagine why they'd want to encourage that. Maybe not throw him to the sharks, but why is it MIT's responsibility to save him from his own plan?

I do agree that he wasn't a kid, although I think everyone wants to treat him that way. Probably because see him as a poor broken bird due to suicide.

Aside from that, though, that doesn't mean I agree with the way the prosecution was handled. That's classic Federal overkill. He was definitely guilty of trespass and probably some civil stuff, but I can't see why they'd go farther than that. Still, breaking the law is always a very, very dicey prospect as a method of protest, even in more benign jurisdictions, and he should have known that.

improperly?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Swartz, a well-known activist, killed himself earlier this year while being prosecuted for federal computer crimes after he improperly downloaded millions of academic research articles." (emphasis added)

Given that: 1) he wasn't convicted; 2) the journals in question didn't have the right to the works they were selling access to (the authors were generally funded by university/public money, and thus did not hold the copyright and thus could not transfer the rights to the journal); 3) its even debatable if he violated the TOS (he was apparently doing a research project related to the papers, presumably some sort of meta study, which could might be acceptable use for millions of papers), it seems inaccurate to say his downloads were "Improper".

I personally think his actions were perfectly acceptable, proper and legal.

Re:improperly?

[GameboyRMH]

If anything he was properly releasing information that was improperly withheld.

Re:improperly?

[GodInHell]

The journals in question didn't have the right to the works they were selling access to (the authors were generally funded by university/public money, and thus did not hold the copyright and thus could not transfer the rights to the journal);

This statement has no basis in the law of the United States, it is mere sophistry posing as a postulation of fact. University authors (even publicly funded ones) retain rights to their own work. They're the author. You are confusing by degree restrictions placed on what is patentable for what is copyrightable - they are not the same, restrictions on one don't cross to the other - and there are very VERY few strings attached even to patenting work funded by public monies in the United States.

It is not debatable that he breached the TOS - because he was not a student or faculty (or even invitee) of MIT. Those terms of service posted at MIT's site include that you must be a student/faculty/staff to access JSTOR. JSTOR saw that someone at MIT was systemically downloading every journal in their database -- they asked MIT to look into it. MIT did. MIT took steps to stop whomever was downloading the journals from doing so - Swartz then designed around that limitation - leaving a laptop hidden under a box in a closet. MIT found the laptop and put a camera there -- they saw Swartz enter the closet (taking steps to hide his face while sneaking in to engage in his -- what did you call it "meta study"). When a police officer approached Swartz, he fled (itself a criminal act) and was arrested in the middle of trying to ditch the hard drive full of data.

So, he traveled to MIT from the campus where he was on staff (and had access to JSTOR there), hid a device on campus to downloand the files, hid his face as he came and went, fled from police, and tried to ditch the stolen items when he was accosted. There is a serious question whether or not Swartz knew what he was doing was against the law? Seriously? Not buying it.

Timing

[OECD]

If MIT is at all serious about implementing any reforms to stop this kind of tragedy from happening again, it must stop objecting to the release of information about the case. Which they will probably do, now that they got "ahead of the story."

Re:improperly downloaded articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were pay-walled (by journls who claim copyright from authors who did them as works for hire and thus didn't have the copyright to transfer). He downloaded them for free from a university that had payed a license (with a laptop hidden in a closet). There was TOS involved (which he may or may not have violated), which violating is a felony (due to an obscure and unconstitutional law).

"Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted..."

[timeOday]

So states the linked response by Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman. Lately there has also been a lot of sympathy expressed for people who committed suicide after being bullied, gay-bashed, or slut-shamed. This could have bad effects. I think we should heap shame on those who did wrong (the bullies/bashers/shamers), rather than pity on those who killed themselves, since doing so makes suicide a very real and potentially attractive lever of power for young people. Suicide is contagious.

"We want a review, but don't review our actions"

[Chris Mattern]

"Because we're not doing a review to correct any possible problems, we're doing a review so that we can tell people we did a review and didn't find any problems.

More background, New yorker article has more depth

[citylivin]

If you are interested, a few months ago the new yorker had a great article detailing exactly what happened here with first hand interviews with most of the players. You can then make your own decisions.

Requiem for a dream: the tragedy of aaron swartz

What I got out of the article was 1) He was not trying to "make a statement" with his "hacking" action, but that was how the government portraited it. 2) He was very ecentric, and primarily seems to have killed himself because of what the legal action would have done to his future career. He had aspirations of running a foundation or becoming active in politics, and he felt that having a criminal record crippled his future. 3) One of the tipping points was having many of his personal correspondences subpenaed, as he was a very private person, which the government did solely to embarrass him, by making him and his girlfriends correspondences over the years, public.

In the end though, I think he just over reacted. His suicide was his doing and no one elses. Sometimes life will try and break you down and if you give up, then you die. I think if he had more robust coping strategies he could have seen that this was just a speed bump on the road of life and not over reacted by killing himself. The "crimes" he committed were not really that bad, and prosecutors are going to be mean and aggressive - that is their job. However of course, I was not in his shoes, so who am i to judge.

It is really just a tragedy.

What was MIT's duty here?

[BitterOak]

As far as I know, Aaron Swartz wasn't even a student, faculty member, or employee of MIT, so why does MIT have a duty to defend him? He was arrested for trespassing when he was in a networking closet where he had no business being. If someone breaks into your home, do you have a duty to defend them if they're prosecuted, even if they're being prosecuted over-zealously?