Some actual reporting on this issue besides just the letter from the MIT President can be found at http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N13/swartz.html http://tech.mit.edu/

Some actual reporting on this issue besides just the letter from the MIT President can be found at http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N13/swartz.html http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N13/swartz.html Apparently JSTOR also supports redaction: " JSTOR’s response was similar to MIT’s. “We believe the information we provided to the United States Attorney’s Office in this case should be made open and available to the public. In a letter dated Feb. 25, we agreed to the lifting of the protective order so long as the articles downloaded from JSTOR were not released and the identities of our staff are protected,” said Heidi McGregor, a JSTOR spokeswoman, in an email to The Tech. “We do not agree that individuals’ names need to be included with these materials to serve the public interest.” " " “Although the United States and representatives of Mr. Swartz agreed on many proposed modifications to the ­order, the United States and Mr. Swartz’s representatives did not reach agreement on the scope of the redactions,” Pirozzolo said. “The United States expects to respond to the motion within the time provided by the district court rules,” he said. “It will also request that individuals potentially affected by the modification of the order be given an opportunity to be heard on the proposed modifications.” " Given that last part you can certainly expect the MIT documents to come out much much faster than Gov documents.