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."
Re: Sorry internet (Score:2, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with driving anyone from any org to suicide (that is not dead yet) It does have to do with transparency and accountability though.
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.
What do you mean by "good?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes, someone gets faced with an ethical dilemma and doesn't immediately know what the right thing to do is. In those circumstances, it's understandable that the first thing he does is not necessarily the best thing he could have done.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Using a sledgehammer to swat a fly is bad, not because the fly doesn't need to be swatted.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Who? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sorry internet (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Great blog post, now let's examine the details (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-03/full-list-2013s-bilderberg-attendees [zerohedge.com]
First, there was the primary person pushing for the extradition of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, Carl Bildt of Sweden.
Next, we have Robert Kaplan of Stratfor, the private intel outfit which was hacked by Anonymous, providing some most interesting and incriminating data.
Of course, we also see Alex Karp, of Palantir, the bunch who were prostituting themselves and tripping over themselves to run a disinformation campaign for the banksters against WikiLeaks.
Most telling, though, was a Harvard attendee, Lawrence Lessig, the dood and attorney for Aaron Swartz, the guy who was supposed to be Aaron's friend and mentor, the guy who brought Aaron into his fold so he could "watch over him" (or how about observe, compromise and interdict Aaron), the guy who waiting until after Aaron had committed suicide before he was planning to tell him that the federal prosecutors had backed away from their original onerous agenda of legally making Aaron give up any online computing for the remainder of his natural life?
Looking at that latest list of Bilderbergers, it is certainly not surprising to read this about MIT and company!