5 ms·

Those of us who believe MIT deserves some blame for subsequent events do so because they could have asked the prosecution to desist, as JSTOR did, or at least d

Those of us who believe MIT deserves some blame for subsequent events do so because they could have asked the prosecution to desist, as JSTOR did, or at least downgrade the charges to a misdemeanor, but chose not to. That amounted to an implicit endorsement of the prosecution, which would have been difficult to pursue without the support of either MIT or JSTOR. The report appears to find that MIT should not have changed its neutral stance, which is disappointing, and I'm skeptical. Here's a quote (IV.B.3): Given the lead prosecutor’s comments to MIT’s outside counsel (see section III.C.3), MIT statements would seemingly have had little impact, and even risk making matters worse—although this information was not shared with Swartz’s advocates. It does reinforce what we already know: that the public prosecutor was mostly interested in collecting a scalp. Update: Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Aaron's partner at the time of his death, has released a statement. Full disclosure: Taren's a friend, Aaron was a friend, and I'm not exactly a disinterested party here. http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/56881327662/mit-report-is-a-whitewash-my-statement-in-response http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/56881327662/mit-report-is-a-w...

mitmatt 13y ago
> The report appears to find that MIT should not have changed its neutral stance, which is disappointing, and I'm skeptical. The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done, as it states many times, such as in the last paragraph of the Introduction section: > It was not part of our charge in this review to draw conclusions, but rather to determine facts and to consider what can be learned from this tragedy. Part V accordingly poses questions, not answers. and again in the 4th paragraph of Section V: > The Review Panel was not asked to make recommendations in our report, but rather to suggest how MIT might learn from this history. Your comment misrepresents the report's purpose as well as its content. I think the report deserves a more careful reading. EDIT: Personally, I recommend reading the Conclusion section (p. 100) and searching for the string "neutral" in that section.
- bguthrie 13y ago
  I'm skimming quickly for the gist, and certainly didn't intend to misrepresent its contents. That being said, I'm not going to change what I wrote; that quote presents a value judgment, one that I'm skeptical of, and since the broader report doesn't appear to admit to any responsibility for subsequent events, I think it's disappointing. I have a lot of respect for the authors of the report, and I trust their integrity. But if judgement wasn't in their remit, then it was a poor remit. Note also that MIT's president seems to believe that the report constitutes a free pass: From studying this review of MIT's role, I am confident that MIT's decisions were reasonable, appropriate and made in good faith.
  - whyme 13y ago
    "I have a lot of respect for the authors of the report, and I trust their integrity" Respect and trust are lost much more easily than gained.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  > The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done Well then what's the point of the report other than allowing MIT to wash its hands? Great timing on the release as well since it will likely be forgotten and hidden due to another big event today.
  - larrys 13y ago
    "Great timing on the release as well since it will likely be forgotten and hidden due to another big event today." What is your suggestion on a better time to release? Or what do you think they should have done exactly?
    - chaostheory 13y ago
      Simple. Delay it for a few days. I would imagine MIT's administration reads the news. Even if they publicly announced a deadline, which I don't think they did; it's not like they couldn't offer a good rationale for delaying the release of the findings. My opinion hasn't changed. Given the date of release and their objection to the FOIA requests, the only things MIT really wants is to have this event forgotten and to disavow any wrongdoing on their part.
      - rdl 13y ago
        The optimal thing for MIT would have been to release it after PFC Manning gets ~20 years (which is my prediction; not found guilty on aiding the enemy, but everything else). It's weird to do something slightly shifty (morning-of) but not optimally shifty.
        chaostheory 13y ago
        I would argue that would make it too obvious. Besides while it may be more optimal to release it after the verdict, releasing it in the morning on the same day has essentially the same effect.
  - ash 13y ago
larrys 13y ago
"Those of us who believe MIT deserves some blame for subsequent events" To be clear do you mean that MIT deserves blame for the suicide?
- chaostheory 13y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong but they deserve blame for initiating the destruction of someone's life (jail time and fines in the millions) and not doing anything to stop it like JSTOR did. Yes not everyone offs themselves when their lives are ruined, but there are a lot of people who do. Now they're essentially trying to be free of any blame by releasing a CYA document during a time when everyone's attention will be on something else. Even if Aaron was still alive, the things MIT did would be no less wrong.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    > Correct me if I'm wrong but they deserve blame for initiating the destruction of someone's life (jail time and fines in the millions) So Aaron had nothing to do with getting himself into the situation that he did?
    - chaostheory 13y ago
      Of course he did, just like Rosa Parks and MLK Jr knowingly broke laws that they felt were unjust, but that's besides the point. The main point is that MIT could have done what JSTOR did and made it right. They didn't. To add insult to injury, now they're doing everything they can to hide information relevant to the case. I also really hate arguments that blame the victim.
      - grauniad 13y ago
        Jesus Christ, you're serious here? He broke the law. Then he committed suicide. I don't think there's much debate to be had about where any blame lies.
        13y ago

mitmatt 13y ago

> The report appears to find that MIT should not have changed its neutral stance, which is disappointing, and I'm skeptical. The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done, as it states many times, such as in the last paragraph of the Introduction section: > It was not part of our charge in this review to draw conclusions, but rather to determine facts and to consider what can be learned from this tragedy. Part V accordingly poses questions, not answers. and again in the 4th paragraph of Section V: > The Review Panel was not asked to make recommendations in our report, but rather to suggest how MIT might learn from this history. Your comment misrepresents the report's purpose as well as its content. I think the report deserves a more careful reading. EDIT: Personally, I recommend reading the Conclusion section (p. 100) and searching for the string "neutral" in that section.

bguthrie 13y ago
I'm skimming quickly for the gist, and certainly didn't intend to misrepresent its contents. That being said, I'm not going to change what I wrote; that quote presents a value judgment, one that I'm skeptical of, and since the broader report doesn't appear to admit to any responsibility for subsequent events, I think it's disappointing. I have a lot of respect for the authors of the report, and I trust their integrity. But if judgement wasn't in their remit, then it was a poor remit. Note also that MIT's president seems to believe that the report constitutes a free pass: From studying this review of MIT's role, I am confident that MIT's decisions were reasonable, appropriate and made in good faith.
- whyme 13y ago
  "I have a lot of respect for the authors of the report, and I trust their integrity" Respect and trust are lost much more easily than gained.
chaostheory 13y ago
> The report does not have any findings about what MIT "should" have done Well then what's the point of the report other than allowing MIT to wash its hands? Great timing on the release as well since it will likely be forgotten and hidden due to another big event today.
- larrys 13y ago
  "Great timing on the release as well since it will likely be forgotten and hidden due to another big event today." What is your suggestion on a better time to release? Or what do you think they should have done exactly?
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    Simple. Delay it for a few days. I would imagine MIT's administration reads the news. Even if they publicly announced a deadline, which I don't think they did; it's not like they couldn't offer a good rationale for delaying the release of the findings. My opinion hasn't changed. Given the date of release and their objection to the FOIA requests, the only things MIT really wants is to have this event forgotten and to disavow any wrongdoing on their part.
    - rdl 13y ago
      The optimal thing for MIT would have been to release it after PFC Manning gets ~20 years (which is my prediction; not found guilty on aiding the enemy, but everything else). It's weird to do something slightly shifty (morning-of) but not optimally shifty.
      - chaostheory 13y ago
        I would argue that would make it too obvious. Besides while it may be more optimal to release it after the verdict, releasing it in the morning on the same day has essentially the same effect.
- ash 13y ago

larrys 13y ago

"Those of us who believe MIT deserves some blame for subsequent events" To be clear do you mean that MIT deserves blame for the suicide?

chaostheory 13y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but they deserve blame for initiating the destruction of someone's life (jail time and fines in the millions) and not doing anything to stop it like JSTOR did. Yes not everyone offs themselves when their lives are ruined, but there are a lot of people who do. Now they're essentially trying to be free of any blame by releasing a CYA document during a time when everyone's attention will be on something else. Even if Aaron was still alive, the things MIT did would be no less wrong.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  > Correct me if I'm wrong but they deserve blame for initiating the destruction of someone's life (jail time and fines in the millions) So Aaron had nothing to do with getting himself into the situation that he did?
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    Of course he did, just like Rosa Parks and MLK Jr knowingly broke laws that they felt were unjust, but that's besides the point. The main point is that MIT could have done what JSTOR did and made it right. They didn't. To add insult to injury, now they're doing everything they can to hide information relevant to the case. I also really hate arguments that blame the victim.
    - grauniad 13y ago
      Jesus Christ, you're serious here? He broke the law. Then he committed suicide. I don't think there's much debate to be had about where any blame lies.
      - 13y ago