MIT Attempts To Block Release of Documents In Aaron Swartz Case 159
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."
Who? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Sorry internet (Score:4, 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.
Re:Who? (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.
Pointless details. Let's look at the meat of it. (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.
Re:Sorry internet (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.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Who? (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.
Re:Who? (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.
You just made that up. (Score:5, 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 [amazon.com] are you?
Re: Sorry internet (Score:5, Insightful)
It has changed now that they have shown themselves to be as corrupt and self serving as every other education institution.
Re:Who? (Score:5, 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."