4 ms·
MIT supports release of Swartz case documents, if redacted for employee privacy
tl;dr: MIT is choosing to ask the court to relax a protection order releasing MIT documents related to the Swartz case on the condition that the documents be redacted to protect the privacy of MIT's employees.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- lwf 14y agoIn summary: MIT is choosing to ask the court to relax a protection order releasing MIT documents related to the Swartz case on the condition that the documents be redacted to protect the privacy of MIT's employees.
- smoyer 14y agoYep ... you beat me to it, but I hope someone fixes up the misleading title.
- koenigdavidmj 14y agoThe kerning of the scribd view is really weird in Chrome. And almost as bad in IE.
- SilasX 14y agoThere's another way that scribd sucks? You don't say!
- sadfaceunread 14y agoThis is not a particularly accurate title. MIT could release the records at any point (they are MITs to do with whatever they please), and in fact already committed to do so once redaction had occurred. MIT actually expressly opposes in this document the Keker & Van Nest LLP proposed modification of the protective order, without redaction. And in fact brings up a serious procedural misconduct of Keker & Van Nest LLP (they should have already destroyed any copies they possessed already because the criminal case was fully concluded).
- rdl 14y agoI'd rather they be forced to release the documents intact, vs. waiting even longer to release them themselves with redactions. Although I suspect the Internet/wikileaks/etc. will repair any redactions in released files.