24 ms·

Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

266 points by danso 7y ago

jdoliner 7y ago
Sadly, this doesn't answer the most frequently asked question: Did Epstein kill himself?
- fgonzag 7y ago
  Why do you believe MIT would have this information?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jdoliner 7y ago
    I don't, it's just the most frequently asked question.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      It's not such an interesting question, since most people (even at MIT) think the answer is obviously "no". GP is right to doubt that MIT has any particular insight, however.
eesmith 7y ago
"Releasing bad news or documents on a Friday afternoon in an attempt to avoid media scrutiny is often called a “Friday news dump” by members of the media." - https://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/ https://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/
trentnix 7y ago
The report is the product of considerable work involving 73 interviews of 59 people and more than 610,000 documents and emails. That's 10,000 documents and emails per person interviewed. How is that even possible?
- zachberger 7y ago
  I have 24k emails over the last year in my work email. I think this is fairly typical in large companies.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    In a University it is completely out of control. Every individual you ever meet or encounter electronically seems to generate an email or meeting invite from them, their university, their department, their school/faculty and from associated departments with a shared resource that you are required to understand. Sometimes it's multiple messages per day, and I haven't worked there in 3 years. Anacedata as I have only worked at one university.
    - lostgame 7y ago
      It's out of control in general. Email itself is a little bit like phone calls these days - almost entirely useless to me as a medium due to the amount of spam generated. Email is, of course, worse. For every 15-20 emails I get maybe one of them I was expecting or is personal. It's just a glorified spam box.
- kornish 7y ago
  Presumably the documents and emails come from people besides the interviewees.
- apetresc 7y ago
  Those two things are not related. "Give me all the e-mails and Sharepoints on the Exchange server" and "I want to talk to these 59 people" are separate requests.
- irjustin 7y ago
  Likely - not all 610k documents are authored by those 59 people. 59 people are interesting to look at. 610k documents are related to the investigation probably by search/graph. Realistically, not all 610k are read manually.
aneutron 7y ago
This is besides the point of the article, but the link is in HTTP (no TLS but available with a correct certificate), and the report site which has the information linked in the article is also in HTTP (but has a bad TLS certificate).
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Why is this an issue?
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    For an institution that claims to be an engineering leader, there's no real excuse for not having TLS everywhere with proper redirects today. It can prevent ISPs from seeing what you get or injecting their own code into webpages.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Are either of those a risk that's practically worth guarding against for this information? Engineering leaders generally have the skill of choosing the right solution for the problem at hand.
      - somehnguy 7y ago
        Yes. It isn't about the actual information. It is about ensuring that the page is not modified in transit aka nobody (including your ISP) injected code into it. Wouldn't matter if the page simply contained 'hello world', https should be used.
      - krick 7y ago
        Yes, it is worth it, and, no, this particular engineering leader displays no such skill here. It was somewhat debatable several years ago, when the whole "switch to https" movement just started growing traction, and, yes, there are some questionable moments, as with FTP. But today TLS-by-default is pretty much a standard practice for any public web-page like this, there's no trade off to make here, and it can be argued it undermines my privacy as a visitor, since instead of just revealing that I'm visiting mit.edu to the network, I have no choice but to reveal what page I'm visiting and what I'm reading there. Furthermore, the network owner may decide to serve me any bullshit instead of this very important official MIT statement, and I will have no way of knowing that.
baybal2 7y ago
Why they hired a law firm to begin with?
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  Often times outside law firms handle investigations like this. MIT clearly had some failed policies where they were laundering the reputation of a despicable person for donations, which shouldn't happen. An internal investigation would be strongly biased to find no wrong-doing. Ostensibly, an outside investigation is more neutral (even though MIT is still paying for it so they're clearly biased to be soft too...)
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I found noteworthy that MIT recognized the risk of bias and attempted to control for it by retaining a second law firm (that had no history of working with MIT, whereas the first firm they retained has been used by MIT for previous tasks).
  - baybal2 7y ago
    > An internal investigation would be strongly biased to find no wrong-doing. Yes, if there is a bias, it needs to come from somewhere? If feel it is like saying "If you haven't made a crime, you don't need an attorney." This doesn't make sense for most of people on your side of Atlantic, but try to get the rationale behind that. Similarly, if they began talking of settlement fund, then for what they set it for to begin with, if this is a complete BS?
  - woofie11 7y ago
    Well, the law firm in this case is basically an extension of MIT's in-house counsel. MIT has a long, long history with them, including whistleblower intimidation and other cover-ups.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  To conduct a fact-finding operation regarding MIT (and its members') interactions with Epstein and donations contributed by him to the university or its members. http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/ http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/
malvosenior 7y ago
The report itself is rather interesting: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf > After meeting Epstein in February 2013, Ito conducted what he described as “due diligence” into Epstein. Ito told us that he performed a Google search of Epstein and also spoke with certain individuals to learn more. According to Ito, the “influential” people with whom he spoke included Nicholas Negroponte, Media Lab co-founder and Professor Post-Tenure of Media Arts and Sciences; members of the Media Lab Advisory Council; tech billionaires, including a former LinkedIn senior executive and co-founder; and a well-known Harvard Law School professor. Ito also met other influential individuals at meetings with Epstein, including Woody Allen, a senior executive at the Hyatt Corporation, and a former prime minister of Israel. Ito explained that these meetings and discussions influenced his view of Epstein.
- empath75 7y ago
  > and a well-known Harvard Law School professor. almost certainly Alan Dershowitz, who is up to his eyeballs in epstein dirt.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Yes, and the LinkedIn co-founder is obviously Reid Hoffman. Here's a series of Tweets from Aanand Giridharadas talking about discovering some of this information and how they reacted to it: https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1169947031806365696 https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1169947031806365696
    - bronson 7y ago
      That was a great and horrifying read. They're circling the wagons. > Why are the people not connected to Epstein leaving this orbit, while people connected to Epstein remain? > Shouldn't it be the other way around?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
From the report http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf Professor Lloyd's dealings look very, very shady: > Professor Lloyd remained friends with Epstein after his conviction in 2008. He visited Epstein at his office in Florida during the period of Epstein’s criminal sentence. Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch, and he has acknowledged Epstein in his academic publications. While Professor Lloyd clearly valued Epstein as a source of potential funding, he also told us he believed that, by continuing to engage with Epstein post-conviction, he could be part of Epstein’s rehabilitation. Professor Lloyd told us that, in 2005 or 2006 (before Epstein’s conviction), Epstein gave him a personal $60,000 gift to support his MIT research that Professor Lloyd did not submit through MIT. In possible violation of MIT policies and certainly in violation of MIT norms, Professor Lloyd deposited the gift into a personal bank account and did not report it to MIT. > Eventually, in July 2016, Professor Lloyd affirmatively contacted Epstein by email to ask for funding to support his upcoming sabbatical. On June 1, 2017, Epstein emailed his accountant and Professor Lloyd: “send 125 k to mit for seth lloyd from gratitude.”
- gautamcgoel 7y ago
  Wow. Seth Lloyd is a very well-known name in Quantum Computing. It's pretty shady that he's depositing $50,000 gifts from known sex offenders directly into his personal bank account...
  - teachrdan 7y ago
    It would appear to be $50,000 plus $125,000 if I'm reading that last note correctly.
    - simlevesque 7y ago
      the last note says "send to mit", not "send to lloyd" so I'm not sure
      - willis936 7y ago
ericfrenkiel 7y ago
Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."
- zamalek 7y ago
  Irrespective of the trueness or falseness of this, it is completely off-topic.
  - JasonFruit 7y ago
    It is off-topic, but that's not uncommon on HN — and it's certainly one of the most important points that can be made from the Epstein case.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    This comment is downvoted, but shouldn't be: "Epstein didn't kill himself" clearly is off-topic for the thread, and the resulting "discussion" ate the whole thread. 'zamalek is absolutely right.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - pen2l 7y ago
      What's wrong with being a little bit off-topic every now and then as long as it's somewhat interesting? For a lot of us, HN is a big part of our lives, it's our water-cooler place where we come to chat and wind down. I was myself curious to hear what folks here thought of the "Epstein didn't kill himself" trope.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Kind of impressive, and nice in a way - - since it is so obviously corrupt and we become aware of it because the case is so high profile. Makes you wonder who pulled it off and how often things like it occur.
nabnob 7y ago
I've seen some articles written by former MIT Media Lab employees, and they made it seem like Epstein's involvement and history was basically an open secret that they weren't allowed to mention in emails or documents. There was a Medium article that said Epstein brought young Eastern European women (likely trafficked) with him to campus. (If I can find it I will edit this comment) I think it says a lot about their culture, that people working there are encouraged to look the other way when a billionaire is involved. Also, looking at the report, it is obvious that Ito was completely aware of Epstein's history, and the risks of associating with him, but continued to invite him to MIT's campus.
thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
> In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein... This isn't true, right? MIT knew about those engagements from as far back as 2013. This is the first sentence in the first answer to the first question and it just isn't correct. What _actually_ happened in September is a bunch of fucking terrible press for MIT. This whole thing is just so sad and at the end of all this is a bunch of human beings who were treated so poorly by some, and in some ways almost worse, treated indifferently by so many others.
- perennate 7y ago
  The sentence reads: > In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein, President Reif and the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation asked MIT's general counsel to retain a law firm to design and conduct a review of the facts surrounding those engagements. It is the case that Goodwin Procter's fact-finding investigation began in September. And the report details interactions in 2012 and 2013, including who was aware of what at the time. You can read the report here: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
    I still don't understand. They knew in 2013. What exactly does "in response to revelations" mean then? What was the revelation? They've known. That sentences is bullshit and misleading at best.
    - sonofaplum 7y ago
      MIT is not one person. The report details exactly who knew what, when. According to the report, the President of the institute (Reif) did not know until the reporting linking MIT with Epstein.
      - thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
        I'm not referring to the report. I'm talking about the FAQ. The answer is disingenuous and I believe purposefully written to make people unfamiliar with the details to believe MIT found out about the "revelations" in September or at some point around there. There was never a revelation. It was known. > Senior members of the administration were aware of gifts the Media Lab received between 2013 and 2017 ... They knew in general terms about Epstein’s history – that he had been convicted and had served a sentence
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sxcurry 7y ago
1) Negroponte responded: “I know him quite well. The person who is his closest friend is Marvin Minsky, who even visited him in jail. I would take Berlusconi’s money, so why not Jeff.” (By March 2013, Berlusconi, the former Prime Minister of Italy, had been accused of hiring underaged prostitutes and dating underaged girls.) 2)“I’ve also talked to Nicholas [Negroponte] as well who had met him and he also agrees that we should treat Jeffrey with respect.” 3)Negroponte pushed back on concealing Epstein’s attendance, responding (in part) “Of course he can come and would be welcome …. I would make absolutely no fuss over his coming and welcome home [sic] 100%.” Wow, just wow, are there no depths too low?
- gumby 7y ago
  I'm really surprise Marvin visited him in jail. It's not out of character of him (he was really a kind human) but I'm surprised he had that close a relationship. I like Nicholas a lot but some of his remarks do surprise me.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Marvin Minsky was accused of assaulting Virgina Guiffre. Virginia had been trafficked by Epstein starting when she was 15. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/new-details-in-unsealed-jeffrey-epstein-documents https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/new-details-in-unsea... > Giuffre also alleges Epstein and Maxwell told her to have sex with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson; former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell; the late MIT computer scientist Marvin Minsky; and MC2 model agency cofounder Jean Luc Brunel, as well as an unnamed “prince,” “foreign president,” and owner of “a French hotel chain.” Giuffre previously alleged she had been forced by Epstein and Maxwell to have sex with lawyer Alan Dershowitz and Britain’s Prince Andrew.
    - gumby 7y ago
      I know several people who were at that island and have discussed this event; one even told me that he remembered it because Marvin came over to him and said "this woman just offered to have sex with me." Also Gloria, his wife, was there, though I haven't asked her about it (and wouldn't). This seems believable to me. OTOH I did read Giuffre's deposition and she says not just that she was told by Epstein to proposition various people but that it happened. I find that very hard to believe having known him so long, but she made that statement under oath. Also I'm not sure Marvin was famous enough to be worth making up a story about (as opposed to, say, a famous heir to a throne).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gumby 7y ago
Apparently Reif's job was on the line too. I was surprised he survived
vearwhershuh 7y ago
Q: Did Epstein kill himself? upvote no, downvote yes
totalZero 7y ago
Reif should resign.
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
I trust Barr with regards to Epstein’s death being a suicide. The scandal there would be who allowed him to kill himself not necessarily who killed him. What boggles my mind is why they’re being so tight lipped about the investigation. The island was swarming with FBI, including scuba divers. Why not a single statement? Nothing!
pledess 7y ago
> Epstein was joined by one or two female assistants who appeared to be in their twenties, which made some people uncomfortable ... A Media Lab staff member told us that she was "grossed out" during of one Epstein's visits to the Media Lab, both because ... and because Epstein brought female assistants in their twenties with him. Is anyone interpreting this as "At MIT, it's reasonable to be prejudiced against young women who claim to have a job in the philanthropy field. Anyone actually qualified for such a job would have a different age or a different gender."? If I'm a professor elsewhere and visit MIT to talk about my research, can my female graduate student (who did most of the work) safely visit at the same time, or will she run into the same prejudice? Does the answer depend on her physical appearance?
- morelisp 7y ago
  Most everyone else is interpreting this in the context of Epstein trafficking young women from eastern europe, because that's what he did. If you interpret it as you describe instead, I also desperately hope you are not a professor and don't visit MIT.
- pvg 7y ago
  People are, quite sensibly, prejudiced against someone convicted of sex crimes involving the exploitation of young women traveling with young women. The prejudice is against him, not the women. The incident and the reactions of the staff involved has been documented in greater detail elsewhere, you can just google it up.
  - gowld 7y ago
    To avoid the appearance of impropriety, should people avoid hiring female assistants? I hope not.
    - pvg 7y ago
      To avoid the appearance and reality of impropriety, people should avoid sex trafficking and other crimes. I don’t understand what the relationship to ‘employing women assistants’ is supposed to be.
scarejunba 7y ago
You know, I was thinking to myself what it would take to take Epstein money. How much would count? And the truth is that no amount really works. Most of us middle-class folk would probably say no pretty fast if offered the choice because the best way to stay safe from the mob is to not let it turn its Eye of Sauron on you. The instinct that keeps me far is less morality than self-preservation. Epstein himself had billions and he died in a jail cell. I'd take the deal if I were destitute, though. Interestingly, lots of these people weren't destitute. But these people (more intelligent than I am) fell for a trick I would have fallen for a hundred times faster: the slow drip. "Come visit my island. I'll fly you there". Of course I say "yes". Then when I'm there, everyone is busy having sex with kids. I'm standing there like gawking like an idiot. I have no sex with kids. I'm the only one who will say that. I'm already screwed. Well played, mob, well played. If I whistle blow the kid-screwing then they'll get in front of me. I'll commit suicide because apparently I had this secret paedophilia. The Internet will say "Well, junba wasn't a trustworthy guy ultimately. They found child porn on his computer". I'm not saying that some of the guys were innocent. I'm saying that given the existence of adversaries bent on information manipulation, no one external can determine if you're innocent or not. Better to stay far from the Eye of Sauron.
ezekg 7y ago
Anybody else remember the death of Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz? And what role MIT played in it? And the “conspiracy theories” surrounding his death? It may be a good time to look at that again.
- _r4su 7y ago
  Also don't forget that Rafael Reif was responsible for orchestrating the massive coverup of fraud at MIT Lincoln Laboratory regarding Ted Postol's allegations of fraudulent missile defense tests: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401412/postol-vs-the-pentagon/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401412/postol-vs-the-pent... If the Department of Defense had not punted on the investigation, then provost Rafael Reif and his supervisor president Susan Hockfield would be serving time in a federal penitentiary with former dean of MIT Sloan School of Management Gabriel Bitran https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/12/investing/mit-professor-scam/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/12/investing/mit-professor-sca... instead of sending thank-you notes to one of the most depraved child molesters of the 20th century. Shame on Reif and Hockfield!
rdtsc 7y ago
> At the end of the discussion, there was a consensus, reached by Morgan, Ruiz, and Newton, to keep Epstein’s $100,000 donation to the Media Lab and to accept further donations from him so long as: (1) each donation would be recorded as anonymous, and Epstein could not publicize it; (2) the donations would be relatively small; and (3) the donations would be unrestricted. Right, they thought really hard about it and their moral compass told them to sweep it under the carpet. Then the emails from Ito to Newton and the others at Resource Development are interesting. Here is one, Ito tries hard convince others to let him keep the money. > I’m actively developing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and I’d like to know your thinking on this. More important than this $100K is what happens if he is interested in a much larger gift. My previous understanding was that if it was not accounted or named—or if the gift might be given anonymously—it was likely to be OK. He is dangling future bags of money in front of them. "Just think of all the funding we could be getting. And look, we've already hid it as anonymous before, surely we can do it again". That's some very effective tactics. Epstein did that too, he started giving smaller amounts of money first to see how it goes. Those processed, people made excuses. Once that happened they were hooked into the scheme and ready to be roped in even more. Ito was using the same tactics.
- rantwasp 7y ago
  this whole thread bothers me, but not for the usual reasons. 1) everyone is up on their high horses pretending that they somehow have an absolute moral compass that would prevent them from doing any wrong. To me it looks like people over at MIT are trying to do the right thing (with this external investigation) and maybe there will be some lessons learned from this whole episode. 2) everyone is outraged (rightfully) at what this guy/monster did but I believe we are missing a bigger point here: people abuse power every damn day. people fuck over people in a weak position - that cannot defend themselves - every damn day. It sounds like some lives are more important than other when it comes to capturing the moral highground. What about minimum wage workers living in poverty, people that deperately need health care or civilians in war zones? Nobody gives a damn about what has become the new normal, but we're outraged that some guy had assistants in their 20s and basically ran a prostitution ring on his island. 3) a subset of the same people that probably visited the island have decided to silence the guy because he probably knew too much. The same people that had no problem having sex with underage, sexually exploited girls, decided to abuse their power once more. And we're outraged that a bunch of MIT professors took donations to pursuit their research. Honestly at this point I would just let law enforcement do their thing and would focus on preventing/exposing situations such of this vs being revisionists about what should have been done.
0x262d 7y ago
Our ruling class is chock full of pedophiles and rapists (Trump, Bill Clinton, Epstein, etc) and because they have all the power and wealth, it gradually filters down to other institutions that depend on sponsorship like MIT. This is what is sometimes called bourgeois decadence.
- 0x262d 7y ago
  Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking an underage girl in 2008, by the way, long before many of MIT’s dealings with him. literally convicted, which is surprising! he got a 13 month sentence and spent most of it on “work release” because that is how justice works for billionaires as long as they don’t threaten other billionaires.
avalys 7y ago
Can someone explain to me what harm was caused by MIT accepting anonymous donations from Jeffrey Epstein? As an MIT alum I don't understand what the problem is.
- eesmith 7y ago
  They weren't really anonymous. Those who needed to know, knew. The details were just hidden from the general public. "Really anonymous" might be to set up a trust, interact through a lawyer, where MIT receives no information about the person behind the scenes. But people at MIT knew, and it helped him make connections with other people. In addition, the donations were reciprocated. One example (going from memory, so might have details wrong) was that one of the labs was asked to make a gift for Epstein.
- fatbird 7y ago
  It allowed Epstein to launder his reputation as a sexual predator and trafficker. Even with his donations recorded as "anonymous", he remained a conduit and effective networker for the Media Lab. Bill Gates donated $2,000,000, IIRC, to the Media Lab through Epstein. As part of his continued networking as a big dollar donor, Epstein continued using his private island to abuse and traffic underage women. Basically, once his reputation was in tatters following his conviction, the Media Lab and various individuals found it profitable to rent their reputations (and MIT's) to Epstein.
- selfishgene 7y ago
  The same reason that you don't do business with organized crime.
- cjbprime 7y ago
  > “Have you managed to talk to many of my friends?” > Epstein had been supplying me the phone numbers of important scientists and financiers and media figures. “Do you understand what an extraordinary group of people they are, what they have accomplished in their fields?" -- http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/ http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/
awb 7y ago
> we now see that the donations totaled $850,000 Why would Epstein donate $850k to MIT?
_y6bf 7y ago
A large defense contractor in Massachusetts conducted research for the CIA in support of its post-9/11 enhanced interrogation program. Stephen Kosslyn, formerly affiliated with the Harvard psychology department, helped this defense contractor win the contract and served as an academic advisor to the program for the CIA. Kosslyn was also responsible for creating a position for Jeffrey Epstein at Harvard in the psychology department, according to a recent report published by Harvard's president Lawrence Bacow. Given Epstein's alleged connection to CIA, one wonders what role it played in helping land this disgraceful $20 million program in in this defense contractor's lap?
jacquesm 7y ago
After the report on Aaron Swartz I have very low expectations, in fact I expect another MIT whitewash. I'll read it to see if that's the case.
_ebyg 7y ago
There is a good reason why Rafael Reif only appears in public these days flanked on all sides by brutes from the MIT police department. During the Vietnam War, Dean Epps was placed under citizen's arrest by the students of Harvard University (as he famously yelled back at them: "Unhand me, you mother-fuckers!") for that organization's complicity in what the UN has now ruled a war crime: https://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/occupy_harvard_gets_the_old_college_jeer/ https://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/occupy_harvard_gets_the_old... Got to wish protesters today the best of luck getting anywhere near that close to Rafael Reif, with the police detail that he needs to hide behind in order to protect his filthier-than-dirt, self-rationalizing ass from those who might attempt to hold him publicly accountable.
freestylerr 7y ago
What appears surprising to me is how easy the funded researchers apparently got away with it. - Profs Lloyd and Oxman, still in service - Joscha Bach, who is the VP of research at the AI foundation (https://aifoundation.com/about/ https://aifoundation.com/about/), and declined to comment. I don’t know whether someone with such track record should be educating on the future of AI?
DayDollar 7y ago
The best shield for the devious are the innocent and idealists. If you murder someone and burry them in your back yard - invite the police over for a bbq.
throwaway91138 7y ago
I find the whole Epstein thing to be full fledged Puritan Rage Culture. Start with the crimes of the man himself. He had young women and girls around and gave them money in exchange for sexual acts. This is something society doesn't like to think about explicitly, but might these young females have actually chosen/wanted this? The typical answer is: They were underage and vulnerable therefor anything they did doesn't imply consent. That is a very condescending view. The age of legal consent in the US is 16 in many states and as low as 11 under some circumstances! In the charges against him it says: "Once minor victims were recruited, EPSTEIN or his employees or associates would contact victims to schedule appointments for “massages.” As a result, many victims were abused by EPSTEIN on multiple subsequent occasions." "To further enable him to abuse underage girls, EPSTEIN asked and enticed certain of his victims to recruit additional minor girls to perform “massages” and similarly engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN. When a victim would recruit another underage girl for EPSTEIN, he paid both the victim-recruiter and the new victim hundreds of dollars in cash. Through these victim-recruiters, EPSTEIN maintained a steady supply of new victims to exploit, and gained access to dozens of additional underage girls to abuse." https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/jeffrey-epstein-charged-manhattan-federal-court-sex-trafficking-minors https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/jeffrey-epstein-charged... These account make it clear to me, that these girls were not helpless victims suffering at the hands of an abuser. That just doesn't scale. 100s of girls agreeing to be scheduled again and again (without use of force threat or violence), and to recruit other girls means that it wasn't that bad. I know this is something "you can't say" hence the throwaway. I'm not saying that there wasn't any foul play, or that Epstein was a great guy. Far from it. But that he is very different from someone who physically abuses a helpless prepubescent child with violence. In a way treating both these cases as "pedophilic sex offences" is offensive to victims of the latter. My point is that society needs to re-embrace Proportionality. We wrote this man off as pure Evil, so anything he touches must be Evil too. We don't allow any positive attribution to his actions. Any money he gives is tainted money only used to launder his reputation. Any person that has ever come into contact with him, let alone had any positive thought about him, is also Evil. Why is accepting donations from him frame the person or organization as endorsing child abuse? Why is having a photo with him, or being at a dinner party with him mark you as suspect? Why shouldn't have MIT accept donations from him? Should Apple (or your startup) not sell to "known sex offenders" or other convicted criminals?

266 points by danso 7y ago

jdoliner 7y ago

Sadly, this doesn't answer the most frequently asked question: Did Epstein kill himself?

fgonzag 7y ago
Why do you believe MIT would have this information?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jdoliner 7y ago
  I don't, it's just the most frequently asked question.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    It's not such an interesting question, since most people (even at MIT) think the answer is obviously "no". GP is right to doubt that MIT has any particular insight, however.

eesmith 7y ago

"Releasing bad news or documents on a Friday afternoon in an attempt to avoid media scrutiny is often called a “Friday news dump” by members of the media." - https://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/ https://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/

trentnix 7y ago

The report is the product of considerable work involving 73 interviews of 59 people and more than 610,000 documents and emails. That's 10,000 documents and emails per person interviewed. How is that even possible?

zachberger 7y ago
I have 24k emails over the last year in my work email. I think this is fairly typical in large companies.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  In a University it is completely out of control. Every individual you ever meet or encounter electronically seems to generate an email or meeting invite from them, their university, their department, their school/faculty and from associated departments with a shared resource that you are required to understand. Sometimes it's multiple messages per day, and I haven't worked there in 3 years. Anacedata as I have only worked at one university.
  - lostgame 7y ago
    It's out of control in general. Email itself is a little bit like phone calls these days - almost entirely useless to me as a medium due to the amount of spam generated. Email is, of course, worse. For every 15-20 emails I get maybe one of them I was expecting or is personal. It's just a glorified spam box.
kornish 7y ago
Presumably the documents and emails come from people besides the interviewees.
apetresc 7y ago
Those two things are not related. "Give me all the e-mails and Sharepoints on the Exchange server" and "I want to talk to these 59 people" are separate requests.
irjustin 7y ago
Likely - not all 610k documents are authored by those 59 people. 59 people are interesting to look at. 610k documents are related to the investigation probably by search/graph. Realistically, not all 610k are read manually.

aneutron 7y ago

This is besides the point of the article, but the link is in HTTP (no TLS but available with a correct certificate), and the report site which has the information linked in the article is also in HTTP (but has a bad TLS certificate).

shadowgovt 7y ago
Why is this an issue?
- djsumdog 7y ago
  For an institution that claims to be an engineering leader, there's no real excuse for not having TLS everywhere with proper redirects today. It can prevent ISPs from seeing what you get or injecting their own code into webpages.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Are either of those a risk that's practically worth guarding against for this information? Engineering leaders generally have the skill of choosing the right solution for the problem at hand.
    - somehnguy 7y ago
      Yes. It isn't about the actual information. It is about ensuring that the page is not modified in transit aka nobody (including your ISP) injected code into it. Wouldn't matter if the page simply contained 'hello world', https should be used.
    - krick 7y ago
      Yes, it is worth it, and, no, this particular engineering leader displays no such skill here. It was somewhat debatable several years ago, when the whole "switch to https" movement just started growing traction, and, yes, there are some questionable moments, as with FTP. But today TLS-by-default is pretty much a standard practice for any public web-page like this, there's no trade off to make here, and it can be argued it undermines my privacy as a visitor, since instead of just revealing that I'm visiting mit.edu to the network, I have no choice but to reveal what page I'm visiting and what I'm reading there. Furthermore, the network owner may decide to serve me any bullshit instead of this very important official MIT statement, and I will have no way of knowing that.

baybal2 7y ago

Why they hired a law firm to begin with?

mikeyouse 7y ago
Often times outside law firms handle investigations like this. MIT clearly had some failed policies where they were laundering the reputation of a despicable person for donations, which shouldn't happen. An internal investigation would be strongly biased to find no wrong-doing. Ostensibly, an outside investigation is more neutral (even though MIT is still paying for it so they're clearly biased to be soft too...)
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I found noteworthy that MIT recognized the risk of bias and attempted to control for it by retaining a second law firm (that had no history of working with MIT, whereas the first firm they retained has been used by MIT for previous tasks).
- baybal2 7y ago
  > An internal investigation would be strongly biased to find no wrong-doing. Yes, if there is a bias, it needs to come from somewhere? If feel it is like saying "If you haven't made a crime, you don't need an attorney." This doesn't make sense for most of people on your side of Atlantic, but try to get the rationale behind that. Similarly, if they began talking of settlement fund, then for what they set it for to begin with, if this is a complete BS?
- woofie11 7y ago
  Well, the law firm in this case is basically an extension of MIT's in-house counsel. MIT has a long, long history with them, including whistleblower intimidation and other cover-ups.
shadowgovt 7y ago
To conduct a fact-finding operation regarding MIT (and its members') interactions with Epstein and donations contributed by him to the university or its members. http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/ http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/

malvosenior 7y ago

The report itself is rather interesting: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf > After meeting Epstein in February 2013, Ito conducted what he described as “due diligence” into Epstein. Ito told us that he performed a Google search of Epstein and also spoke with certain individuals to learn more. According to Ito, the “influential” people with whom he spoke included Nicholas Negroponte, Media Lab co-founder and Professor Post-Tenure of Media Arts and Sciences; members of the Media Lab Advisory Council; tech billionaires, including a former LinkedIn senior executive and co-founder; and a well-known Harvard Law School professor. Ito also met other influential individuals at meetings with Epstein, including Woody Allen, a senior executive at the Hyatt Corporation, and a former prime minister of Israel. Ito explained that these meetings and discussions influenced his view of Epstein.

empath75 7y ago
> and a well-known Harvard Law School professor. almost certainly Alan Dershowitz, who is up to his eyeballs in epstein dirt.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Yes, and the LinkedIn co-founder is obviously Reid Hoffman. Here's a series of Tweets from Aanand Giridharadas talking about discovering some of this information and how they reacted to it: https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1169947031806365696 https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1169947031806365696
  - bronson 7y ago
    That was a great and horrifying read. They're circling the wagons. > Why are the people not connected to Epstein leaving this orbit, while people connected to Epstein remain? > Shouldn't it be the other way around?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

From the report http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf Professor Lloyd's dealings look very, very shady: > Professor Lloyd remained friends with Epstein after his conviction in 2008. He visited Epstein at his office in Florida during the period of Epstein’s criminal sentence. Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch, and he has acknowledged Epstein in his academic publications. While Professor Lloyd clearly valued Epstein as a source of potential funding, he also told us he believed that, by continuing to engage with Epstein post-conviction, he could be part of Epstein’s rehabilitation. Professor Lloyd told us that, in 2005 or 2006 (before Epstein’s conviction), Epstein gave him a personal $60,000 gift to support his MIT research that Professor Lloyd did not submit through MIT. In possible violation of MIT policies and certainly in violation of MIT norms, Professor Lloyd deposited the gift into a personal bank account and did not report it to MIT. > Eventually, in July 2016, Professor Lloyd affirmatively contacted Epstein by email to ask for funding to support his upcoming sabbatical. On June 1, 2017, Epstein emailed his accountant and Professor Lloyd: “send 125 k to mit for seth lloyd from gratitude.”

gautamcgoel 7y ago
Wow. Seth Lloyd is a very well-known name in Quantum Computing. It's pretty shady that he's depositing $50,000 gifts from known sex offenders directly into his personal bank account...
- teachrdan 7y ago
  It would appear to be $50,000 plus $125,000 if I'm reading that last note correctly.
  - simlevesque 7y ago
    the last note says "send to mit", not "send to lloyd" so I'm not sure
    - willis936 7y ago

ericfrenkiel 7y ago

Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."

zamalek 7y ago
Irrespective of the trueness or falseness of this, it is completely off-topic.
- JasonFruit 7y ago
  It is off-topic, but that's not uncommon on HN — and it's certainly one of the most important points that can be made from the Epstein case.
- tptacek 7y ago
  This comment is downvoted, but shouldn't be: "Epstein didn't kill himself" clearly is off-topic for the thread, and the resulting "discussion" ate the whole thread. 'zamalek is absolutely right.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - pen2l 7y ago
    What's wrong with being a little bit off-topic every now and then as long as it's somewhat interesting? For a lot of us, HN is a big part of our lives, it's our water-cooler place where we come to chat and wind down. I was myself curious to hear what folks here thought of the "Epstein didn't kill himself" trope.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dr_dshiv 7y ago
Kind of impressive, and nice in a way - - since it is so obviously corrupt and we become aware of it because the case is so high profile. Makes you wonder who pulled it off and how often things like it occur.

nabnob 7y ago

I've seen some articles written by former MIT Media Lab employees, and they made it seem like Epstein's involvement and history was basically an open secret that they weren't allowed to mention in emails or documents. There was a Medium article that said Epstein brought young Eastern European women (likely trafficked) with him to campus. (If I can find it I will edit this comment) I think it says a lot about their culture, that people working there are encouraged to look the other way when a billionaire is involved. Also, looking at the report, it is obvious that Ito was completely aware of Epstein's history, and the risks of associating with him, but continued to invite him to MIT's campus.

thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago

> In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein... This isn't true, right? MIT knew about those engagements from as far back as 2013. This is the first sentence in the first answer to the first question and it just isn't correct. What _actually_ happened in September is a bunch of fucking terrible press for MIT. This whole thing is just so sad and at the end of all this is a bunch of human beings who were treated so poorly by some, and in some ways almost worse, treated indifferently by so many others.

perennate 7y ago
The sentence reads: > In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein, President Reif and the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation asked MIT's general counsel to retain a law firm to design and conduct a review of the facts surrounding those engagements. It is the case that Goodwin Procter's fact-finding investigation began in September. And the report details interactions in 2012 and 2013, including who was aware of what at the time. You can read the report here: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf
- thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
  I still don't understand. They knew in 2013. What exactly does "in response to revelations" mean then? What was the revelation? They've known. That sentences is bullshit and misleading at best.
  - sonofaplum 7y ago
    MIT is not one person. The report details exactly who knew what, when. According to the report, the President of the institute (Reif) did not know until the reporting linking MIT with Epstein.
    - thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
      I'm not referring to the report. I'm talking about the FAQ. The answer is disingenuous and I believe purposefully written to make people unfamiliar with the details to believe MIT found out about the "revelations" in September or at some point around there. There was never a revelation. It was known. > Senior members of the administration were aware of gifts the Media Lab received between 2013 and 2017 ... They knew in general terms about Epstein’s history – that he had been convicted and had served a sentence

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sxcurry 7y ago

1) Negroponte responded: “I know him quite well. The person who is his closest friend is Marvin Minsky, who even visited him in jail. I would take Berlusconi’s money, so why not Jeff.” (By March 2013, Berlusconi, the former Prime Minister of Italy, had been accused of hiring underaged prostitutes and dating underaged girls.) 2)“I’ve also talked to Nicholas [Negroponte] as well who had met him and he also agrees that we should treat Jeffrey with respect.” 3)Negroponte pushed back on concealing Epstein’s attendance, responding (in part) “Of course he can come and would be welcome …. I would make absolutely no fuss over his coming and welcome home [sic] 100%.” Wow, just wow, are there no depths too low?

gumby 7y ago
I'm really surprise Marvin visited him in jail. It's not out of character of him (he was really a kind human) but I'm surprised he had that close a relationship. I like Nicholas a lot but some of his remarks do surprise me.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Marvin Minsky was accused of assaulting Virgina Guiffre. Virginia had been trafficked by Epstein starting when she was 15. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/new-details-in-unsealed-jeffrey-epstein-documents https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/new-details-in-unsea... > Giuffre also alleges Epstein and Maxwell told her to have sex with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson; former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell; the late MIT computer scientist Marvin Minsky; and MC2 model agency cofounder Jean Luc Brunel, as well as an unnamed “prince,” “foreign president,” and owner of “a French hotel chain.” Giuffre previously alleged she had been forced by Epstein and Maxwell to have sex with lawyer Alan Dershowitz and Britain’s Prince Andrew.
  - gumby 7y ago
    I know several people who were at that island and have discussed this event; one even told me that he remembered it because Marvin came over to him and said "this woman just offered to have sex with me." Also Gloria, his wife, was there, though I haven't asked her about it (and wouldn't). This seems believable to me. OTOH I did read Giuffre's deposition and she says not just that she was told by Epstein to proposition various people but that it happened. I find that very hard to believe having known him so long, but she made that statement under oath. Also I'm not sure Marvin was famous enough to be worth making up a story about (as opposed to, say, a famous heir to a throne).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gumby 7y ago

Apparently Reif's job was on the line too. I was surprised he survived

vearwhershuh 7y ago

Q: Did Epstein kill himself? upvote no, downvote yes

totalZero 7y ago

Reif should resign.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago

I trust Barr with regards to Epstein’s death being a suicide. The scandal there would be who allowed him to kill himself not necessarily who killed him. What boggles my mind is why they’re being so tight lipped about the investigation. The island was swarming with FBI, including scuba divers. Why not a single statement? Nothing!

pledess 7y ago

> Epstein was joined by one or two female assistants who appeared to be in their twenties, which made some people uncomfortable ... A Media Lab staff member told us that she was "grossed out" during of one Epstein's visits to the Media Lab, both because ... and because Epstein brought female assistants in their twenties with him. Is anyone interpreting this as "At MIT, it's reasonable to be prejudiced against young women who claim to have a job in the philanthropy field. Anyone actually qualified for such a job would have a different age or a different gender."? If I'm a professor elsewhere and visit MIT to talk about my research, can my female graduate student (who did most of the work) safely visit at the same time, or will she run into the same prejudice? Does the answer depend on her physical appearance?

morelisp 7y ago
Most everyone else is interpreting this in the context of Epstein trafficking young women from eastern europe, because that's what he did. If you interpret it as you describe instead, I also desperately hope you are not a professor and don't visit MIT.
pvg 7y ago
People are, quite sensibly, prejudiced against someone convicted of sex crimes involving the exploitation of young women traveling with young women. The prejudice is against him, not the women. The incident and the reactions of the staff involved has been documented in greater detail elsewhere, you can just google it up.
- gowld 7y ago
  To avoid the appearance of impropriety, should people avoid hiring female assistants? I hope not.
  - pvg 7y ago
    To avoid the appearance and reality of impropriety, people should avoid sex trafficking and other crimes. I don’t understand what the relationship to ‘employing women assistants’ is supposed to be.

scarejunba 7y ago

You know, I was thinking to myself what it would take to take Epstein money. How much would count? And the truth is that no amount really works. Most of us middle-class folk would probably say no pretty fast if offered the choice because the best way to stay safe from the mob is to not let it turn its Eye of Sauron on you. The instinct that keeps me far is less morality than self-preservation. Epstein himself had billions and he died in a jail cell. I'd take the deal if I were destitute, though. Interestingly, lots of these people weren't destitute. But these people (more intelligent than I am) fell for a trick I would have fallen for a hundred times faster: the slow drip. "Come visit my island. I'll fly you there". Of course I say "yes". Then when I'm there, everyone is busy having sex with kids. I'm standing there like gawking like an idiot. I have no sex with kids. I'm the only one who will say that. I'm already screwed. Well played, mob, well played. If I whistle blow the kid-screwing then they'll get in front of me. I'll commit suicide because apparently I had this secret paedophilia. The Internet will say "Well, junba wasn't a trustworthy guy ultimately. They found child porn on his computer". I'm not saying that some of the guys were innocent. I'm saying that given the existence of adversaries bent on information manipulation, no one external can determine if you're innocent or not. Better to stay far from the Eye of Sauron.

ezekg 7y ago

Anybody else remember the death of Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz? And what role MIT played in it? And the “conspiracy theories” surrounding his death? It may be a good time to look at that again.

_r4su 7y ago
Also don't forget that Rafael Reif was responsible for orchestrating the massive coverup of fraud at MIT Lincoln Laboratory regarding Ted Postol's allegations of fraudulent missile defense tests: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401412/postol-vs-the-pentagon/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401412/postol-vs-the-pent... If the Department of Defense had not punted on the investigation, then provost Rafael Reif and his supervisor president Susan Hockfield would be serving time in a federal penitentiary with former dean of MIT Sloan School of Management Gabriel Bitran https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/12/investing/mit-professor-scam/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/12/investing/mit-professor-sca... instead of sending thank-you notes to one of the most depraved child molesters of the 20th century. Shame on Reif and Hockfield!

rdtsc 7y ago

> At the end of the discussion, there was a consensus, reached by Morgan, Ruiz, and Newton, to keep Epstein’s $100,000 donation to the Media Lab and to accept further donations from him so long as: (1) each donation would be recorded as anonymous, and Epstein could not publicize it; (2) the donations would be relatively small; and (3) the donations would be unrestricted. Right, they thought really hard about it and their moral compass told them to sweep it under the carpet. Then the emails from Ito to Newton and the others at Resource Development are interesting. Here is one, Ito tries hard convince others to let him keep the money. > I’m actively developing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and I’d like to know your thinking on this. More important than this $100K is what happens if he is interested in a much larger gift. My previous understanding was that if it was not accounted or named—or if the gift might be given anonymously—it was likely to be OK. He is dangling future bags of money in front of them. "Just think of all the funding we could be getting. And look, we've already hid it as anonymous before, surely we can do it again". That's some very effective tactics. Epstein did that too, he started giving smaller amounts of money first to see how it goes. Those processed, people made excuses. Once that happened they were hooked into the scheme and ready to be roped in even more. Ito was using the same tactics.

rantwasp 7y ago
this whole thread bothers me, but not for the usual reasons. 1) everyone is up on their high horses pretending that they somehow have an absolute moral compass that would prevent them from doing any wrong. To me it looks like people over at MIT are trying to do the right thing (with this external investigation) and maybe there will be some lessons learned from this whole episode. 2) everyone is outraged (rightfully) at what this guy/monster did but I believe we are missing a bigger point here: people abuse power every damn day. people fuck over people in a weak position - that cannot defend themselves - every damn day. It sounds like some lives are more important than other when it comes to capturing the moral highground. What about minimum wage workers living in poverty, people that deperately need health care or civilians in war zones? Nobody gives a damn about what has become the new normal, but we're outraged that some guy had assistants in their 20s and basically ran a prostitution ring on his island. 3) a subset of the same people that probably visited the island have decided to silence the guy because he probably knew too much. The same people that had no problem having sex with underage, sexually exploited girls, decided to abuse their power once more. And we're outraged that a bunch of MIT professors took donations to pursuit their research. Honestly at this point I would just let law enforcement do their thing and would focus on preventing/exposing situations such of this vs being revisionists about what should have been done.

0x262d 7y ago

Our ruling class is chock full of pedophiles and rapists (Trump, Bill Clinton, Epstein, etc) and because they have all the power and wealth, it gradually filters down to other institutions that depend on sponsorship like MIT. This is what is sometimes called bourgeois decadence.

0x262d 7y ago
Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking an underage girl in 2008, by the way, long before many of MIT’s dealings with him. literally convicted, which is surprising! he got a 13 month sentence and spent most of it on “work release” because that is how justice works for billionaires as long as they don’t threaten other billionaires.

avalys 7y ago

Can someone explain to me what harm was caused by MIT accepting anonymous donations from Jeffrey Epstein? As an MIT alum I don't understand what the problem is.

eesmith 7y ago
They weren't really anonymous. Those who needed to know, knew. The details were just hidden from the general public. "Really anonymous" might be to set up a trust, interact through a lawyer, where MIT receives no information about the person behind the scenes. But people at MIT knew, and it helped him make connections with other people. In addition, the donations were reciprocated. One example (going from memory, so might have details wrong) was that one of the labs was asked to make a gift for Epstein.
fatbird 7y ago
It allowed Epstein to launder his reputation as a sexual predator and trafficker. Even with his donations recorded as "anonymous", he remained a conduit and effective networker for the Media Lab. Bill Gates donated $2,000,000, IIRC, to the Media Lab through Epstein. As part of his continued networking as a big dollar donor, Epstein continued using his private island to abuse and traffic underage women. Basically, once his reputation was in tatters following his conviction, the Media Lab and various individuals found it profitable to rent their reputations (and MIT's) to Epstein.
selfishgene 7y ago
The same reason that you don't do business with organized crime.
cjbprime 7y ago
> “Have you managed to talk to many of my friends?” > Epstein had been supplying me the phone numbers of important scientists and financiers and media figures. “Do you understand what an extraordinary group of people they are, what they have accomplished in their fields?" -- http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/ http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/

awb 7y ago

> we now see that the donations totaled $850,000 Why would Epstein donate $850k to MIT?

_y6bf 7y ago

A large defense contractor in Massachusetts conducted research for the CIA in support of its post-9/11 enhanced interrogation program. Stephen Kosslyn, formerly affiliated with the Harvard psychology department, helped this defense contractor win the contract and served as an academic advisor to the program for the CIA. Kosslyn was also responsible for creating a position for Jeffrey Epstein at Harvard in the psychology department, according to a recent report published by Harvard's president Lawrence Bacow. Given Epstein's alleged connection to CIA, one wonders what role it played in helping land this disgraceful $20 million program in in this defense contractor's lap?

jacquesm 7y ago

After the report on Aaron Swartz I have very low expectations, in fact I expect another MIT whitewash. I'll read it to see if that's the case.

_ebyg 7y ago

There is a good reason why Rafael Reif only appears in public these days flanked on all sides by brutes from the MIT police department. During the Vietnam War, Dean Epps was placed under citizen's arrest by the students of Harvard University (as he famously yelled back at them: "Unhand me, you mother-fuckers!") for that organization's complicity in what the UN has now ruled a war crime: https://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/occupy_harvard_gets_the_old_college_jeer/ https://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/occupy_harvard_gets_the_old... Got to wish protesters today the best of luck getting anywhere near that close to Rafael Reif, with the police detail that he needs to hide behind in order to protect his filthier-than-dirt, self-rationalizing ass from those who might attempt to hold him publicly accountable.

freestylerr 7y ago

What appears surprising to me is how easy the funded researchers apparently got away with it. - Profs Lloyd and Oxman, still in service - Joscha Bach, who is the VP of research at the AI foundation (https://aifoundation.com/about/ https://aifoundation.com/about/), and declined to comment. I don’t know whether someone with such track record should be educating on the future of AI?

DayDollar 7y ago

The best shield for the devious are the innocent and idealists. If you murder someone and burry them in your back yard - invite the police over for a bbq.

throwaway91138 7y ago

I find the whole Epstein thing to be full fledged Puritan Rage Culture. Start with the crimes of the man himself. He had young women and girls around and gave them money in exchange for sexual acts. This is something society doesn't like to think about explicitly, but might these young females have actually chosen/wanted this? The typical answer is: They were underage and vulnerable therefor anything they did doesn't imply consent. That is a very condescending view. The age of legal consent in the US is 16 in many states and as low as 11 under some circumstances! In the charges against him it says: "Once minor victims were recruited, EPSTEIN or his employees or associates would contact victims to schedule appointments for “massages.” As a result, many victims were abused by EPSTEIN on multiple subsequent occasions." "To further enable him to abuse underage girls, EPSTEIN asked and enticed certain of his victims to recruit additional minor girls to perform “massages” and similarly engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN. When a victim would recruit another underage girl for EPSTEIN, he paid both the victim-recruiter and the new victim hundreds of dollars in cash. Through these victim-recruiters, EPSTEIN maintained a steady supply of new victims to exploit, and gained access to dozens of additional underage girls to abuse." https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/jeffrey-epstein-charged-manhattan-federal-court-sex-trafficking-minors https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/jeffrey-epstein-charged... These account make it clear to me, that these girls were not helpless victims suffering at the hands of an abuser. That just doesn't scale. 100s of girls agreeing to be scheduled again and again (without use of force threat or violence), and to recruit other girls means that it wasn't that bad. I know this is something "you can't say" hence the throwaway. I'm not saying that there wasn't any foul play, or that Epstein was a great guy. Far from it. But that he is very different from someone who physically abuses a helpless prepubescent child with violence. In a way treating both these cases as "pedophilic sex offences" is offensive to victims of the latter. My point is that society needs to re-embrace Proportionality. We wrote this man off as pure Evil, so anything he touches must be Evil too. We don't allow any positive attribution to his actions. Any money he gives is tainted money only used to launder his reputation. Any person that has ever come into contact with him, let alone had any positive thought about him, is also Evil. Why is accepting donations from him frame the person or organization as endorsing child abuse? Why is having a photo with him, or being at a dinner party with him mark you as suspect? Why shouldn't have MIT accept donations from him? Should Apple (or your startup) not sell to "known sex offenders" or other convicted criminals?