15 ms·

MIT Report is a whitewash. My Statement in Response

381 points by woodhull 13y ago

pkfrank 13y ago
>Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. This may in fact be true, but this claim is leveled with the implication that MIT is responsible for his death. They surely could have responded better; taking a "non-neutral" position (actively supporting lessened punishment), but this claim seems overreaching and narrow.
- scarmig 13y ago
  For context, Taren was Aaron's partner at the time of his death and was the person who found him hanging.
  - pkfrank 13y ago
    Thanks. I appreciate that context, and I apologize if my original comment was insensitive. It must be terribly painful to have strangers commenting on the loss of a loved one, especially in such a politically charged and public arena.
    - larrys 13y ago
      "I apologize if my original comment was insensitive." It's sad that there is a need to apologize such as you did. This is one of these issues in which ordinary discourse is not possible. You would have to spend so much time padding your thoughts about what you might think to lessen the impact on those that are highly sensitive for one reason or another.
      - schrijver 13y ago
        Well I’m sorry but that’s a pretty basic part of the human experience. While there are some situation in which one can be blunt and straightforward, other situations require all the tact and empathy you can muster… Imagine turning someone down for a job interview. If the person cared for this job, every single word you say will be taken very personal and be mulled over afterwords. That means it is up to you to pick your words very carefully, and find a constructive phrasing.
        larrys 13y ago
        "Imagine turning someone down for a job interview. If the person cared for this job" I know but this wasn't in response to someone who claimed they were directly connected to this case though.
    - scarmig 13y ago
      I don't think you were insensitive at all. My aim was to contextualize the blog post and the emotions that surely went into it. I'm always loath to say what amounts to "take what they say with a grain of salt, they're heavily emotionally invested." It's fair to say that that's the case here, though. I say that as someone who thinks MIT does have some level of culpability and have had the pleasure of interacting with the wonderful and brilliant person that Taren is.
  - 1337biz 13y ago
    Had to google her too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taren_Stinebrickner-Kauffman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taren_Stinebrickner-Kauffman
  - CaveTech 13y ago
    Yes but ultimately Aaron is responsible for his own death. He has his reasons for doing what he did, but it's not fair to give leniency to someone under threat of self harm. To be clear: I do feel the case against Aaron was unjust, but we can't give extra attention to a case due to suicide.
    - indlebe 13y ago
      He had no choice but he was responsible, right. Or are you implying that the should-be-deprecated-by-now idea of compatibilism has some hold?
  - crb002 13y ago
    Taren is an extremely bright activist in her own right. I had the pleasure of working with her for a summer back in 2000 at the CIIR. http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/REU/2000/REUpres/FinalReport2_files/v3_document.htm http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/REU/2000/REUpres/FinalReport2_files... I wish I could track down her paper on southern states putting urban minority prisoners in rural white area prisons. They are put on the rural census and removed from urban census. Not only do they not get to vote, their representation power goes to the white rural voters.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I'm really amazed she seems to have held up so well in spite of one of the most traumatic experiences imaginable.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I suspect that either fact alone would be enough to make Taren one of the most biased parties w.r.t. the MIT report though, so it's good to remind us of that context. Certainly it doesn't mean she's wrong, but we should think critically, just as we would if Ms. Ortiz were making a statement.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I think what's more concerning is that the same logic could be used to rebuke Aaron himself. "Aaron would be alive today if he'd only stopped before he decided to put a laptop in that server closet." Certainly the prosecution was overbearing, and MIT could have been more on Aaron's side. But if we're going to reach into the realm of "If X had done Y Aaron would be alive today" then I think it would be distressing to think how many X's there could be.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >then I think it would be distressing to think how many X's there could be. So how about we take the more obvious Xs and condemn THOSE? It's not like anyone blames Lincoln for going to the theater that day instead of having a quit dinner at home.
    - jmduke 13y ago
      Because those exercises are by definition rabbitholes. If JSTOR had failed their negotiations with the Royal Society of London in '99 and subsequently faded into obscurity, Aaron might still be alive today, etc. The idea that Aaron did something illegal and the idea that Aaron was treated incredibly poorly are not mutually exclusive.
      - erikpukinskis 13y ago
        > Because those exercises are by definition rabbitholes What definition of what term makes that case for you? You seem to basically be denying the concept of causality entirely, which, fine: causality is a brittle concept. But we can still use it to help us reason around things. There are proximate causes and distal causes and all kinds of causes in between and beyond. These are messy, flawed concepts that are useful for trying to analyze systems. You act like you don't understand the distinction between the relationship between MIT and Aaron and the relationship between those negotiations and Aaron, but I am fairly certain you do.
        saraid216 13y ago
- coldtea 13y ago
  >but this claim seems overreaching and narrow. What's with this fear of reaching a conclusion and assigning blame? Better give the individual that hanged himself the benefit of the doubt, than an organization like MIT that acted against him.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    If all you're worried about is finding someone to point a finger at then your plan may well work. If you want to prevent the next gifted hacker from hanging themselves, however, then it pays to search for the truth so that lessons can be learned from what actually happened, not merely from what scenario received the most benefit of the doubt. Note I'm not saying the MIT Report constitutes the truth if Taren's assertions don't.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      If you want to prevent the next gifted hacker from hanging themselves... Is that what we're doing here? I thought it was more about MIT administration being absolute shits to important, creative, contributing members of the community, and how they might stop doing that. Swartz's suicide is not the only thing that makes MIT's behavior shameful. Ideally, next time the administration will correct their craven, copsucking behavior before it gets to that point.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        As far as I can tell the only thing MIT did that was disagreeable was not pushing harder against the felony variant of the CFAA charges. "creating, contributing" member or not, Aaron didn't deserve extra privileges (or warrant worse punishment) compared to anyone else who had DDoS'ed MIT's network and repeatedly gained unauthorized access to their internal subnet. MIT should not have allowed themselves to be used in throwing the book, but I would hardly call them a bunch of absolute shits over this.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >If you want to prevent the next gifted hacker from hanging themselves No, I don't want to do that (not that I could). What I want to do is to prevent the next gifted hacker from being prosecuted for BS and under overblown terms.
- CatMtKing 13y ago
  I guess the point is that "doing nothing" is not "being neutral," especially when in a position of power.
- danso 13y ago
  I think the distinction you make here is important...that it's possible to criticize MIT's actions and policies without going the extra step and laying Aaron's death at their feet...in fact, I think it's ultimately more productive to treat the two things as orthogonal, because the MIT people who may be at fault may resist/stonewall heavily if admission of fault is tied to complicity in Aaron's death. Taren's eulogy for Aaron was one of the best eulogies/call-to-actions I've watched (http://www.livestream.com/democracynow/video?clipId=pla_f83c80fe-0fc0-474c-9936-efe8659466f6 http://www.livestream.com/democracynow/video?clipId=pla_f83c...) and it sheds some more light on the difficulties Aaron was facing in this case. However, when looking at additional facts, including those provided by Taren and others close to Aaron, it kind of rubs me the wrong way to treat the prosecution's causality of Aaron's suicide as fact. via Taren: http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/42260548767/why-aaron-died http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/42260548767/why-aaron-died > I don’t know exactly why Aaron killed himself. I don’t know exactly what was going through his mind. If I had known those things on January 11, if I had even known the right questions to ask, maybe I could have stopped him. Since January 11, I think about it every hour of every day. > The Aaron I knew was active. He worked out most days until he got the flu two weeks before he died. It's hard to second-guess someone who lived with Aaron and say, "Well, us armchair psychologists know better than you"...but the fact is, Taren was the closest person to Aaron and yet can't identify any particular warning signs that Aaron was going to kill himself. She provides compelling evidence that the trial was a huge burden on Aaron...but the question here is: why suicide on that day? There was a procedural deadline, but it didn't seem much more of a conclusive event than anything so far. It's not as if Aaron had been convicted, was on house arrest, and had just heard his appeal had been denied. But as Taren said, Aaron was unusually sick up until the day of his suicide...at least sick enough to stop exercising, which, pedantic as it sounds, is a huge factor in mood swings. Enough to cause someone to commit suicide?... Who knows? I guess why this all bothers me is that, by arguing that Aaron's death was conclusively caused by malicious actors perpetuates the misunderstanding that suicide and depression are, in general, caused by life circumstances....but it seems that some depression is due to physiological factors that aren't related to the "bigger picture". People who face horrific tragedy don't often kill themselves; people who seem to live in enviable circumstances sometimes do. The world would make more sense if everyone committed suicide out of fear, hopelessness, or even weakness (as those who accused Aaron of "rage-quitting" seemed to do)...but this isn't the case, and this belief is unhelpful for those who suffer depression because of physiological, treatable factors...but who may avoid treatment because they think, "Well, I'm not being persecuted, so I must not really be depressed and thus have no reason to seek help" I know I'm being naively idealistic here...because if Aaron hadn't died, if he had only suffered a drawn out trial and even a conviction, the call to reform the U.S attorney's office and the MIT administration would have much more diffuse support without the catalyst of his death. But I do think it's worth being mindful that the issue of treating depression isn't obfuscated. Either way, what a tragedy. Reading Taren's words again really underscores how much of a loss Aaron's death was for civic reform.
- gregcohn 13y ago
  This comment and the thread nested under it misrepresent the point Taren makes in her statement, which is not that MIT caused his death, but that MIT is making a claim of neutrality that is not true. It is clearly true that Shwartz's prosecution was a major factor in his suicide, and, according to Taren, it is equally clear that MIT was a non-neutral party in assisting this prosecution. If these statements are true; it is perfectly reasonable to call misrepresentations by MIT about its participation a "whitewash" and a serious matter.
- silentmars 13y ago
  There is a bit of legal knowledge that may be relevant here, at least in terms of framing this question of who is responsible. In many jurisdictions (in the US) the legal standard of 'negligence' has two requirements. First, proximate cause. That's the "but for" part, that op mentions here. "But for MIT's actions, Aaron would be alive today." The other part is foreknowledge. Someone must have known, or reasonably should have known, that their actions would result in the bad consequence to meet this second standard. I don't think it would be fair to say that MIT could reasonably have foreseen Swartz's suicide. It's interesting to note that Heymann, the federal prosecutor, arguably does meet both of these standards. But for his overzealous -- and I would add abusive -- prosecution, Swartz would still be alive. Further, Swartz's lawyers warned Heymann the day before that Swartz was an imminent risk of suicide, so it seems pretty safe to say that he also meets the foreknowledge standard. I want both Heymann and Ortiz to be fired, and my sense of vengeance wants it to be both public and messy. Wishful thinking. IANAL, blah blah blah and all that.
crb002 13y ago
Ouch. Glad Taren is holding their feet to the fire.
danso 13y ago
> Here are the facts: This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. That’s not neutral. Those aren't really facts, those are assertions that could use some documentation. Which specific witnesses and pieces of evidence did the defense request (and is there a record of this) but were denied to them (and is there a record of that)?
- speeder 13y ago
  My guess this is the thing people are trying to release, and MIT is blocking.
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  >>>Which specific witnesses and pieces of evidence did the defense request (and is there a record of this) but were denied to them (and is there a record of that)? There should be record of both and if I'm not wrong, not handing over discovery materials to the defense is against the law. This is the same type of behavior Zimmerman's defense team alleged when Angela Korey failed to turn over evidence from Trayvon's phone.
ddod 13y ago
It seems like objecting to the FOIA is all the report we need on how wrong/right their actions were. If they think that whatever in there is damaging to them or likely to cause people enough anger to create a dangerous climate for those involved, it doesn't really matter what MIT's internal report characterizes things as.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  It's interesting that a hour in, you are the only one to have mentioned how MIT objected to the FOIA request and the governments compliance. What we have and have had for some time is a democracy (or republic depending on which brand of kool aid one drinks) behind closed doors, by a government that is publicly funded submitting to the will of private institutions. Not that what is going on here is better than anyone else…
Pro_bity 13y ago
This has to be difficult to stomach. I am very sorry for your loss.
GrinningFool 13y ago
This is probably going to cost me karma, but here goes: "Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did" So he has no responsibility for the decisions he made, up to and including the final one? Yes, MIT's actions may have had influence. Or they may have hastened the inevitable - a person who makes this choice is not untroubled to begin with, and it's never about just one thing. Ultimately, it was his choice in the end. The responsibility is his.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  Couldn't agree more. MIT had no obligation, nevermind "a moral imperative" to do anything to try to make him more comfortable with legal procedings. It's sad that he felt that his only way out was via suicide, I can certainly sympathize with the trapped feeling. But let's not blame MIT for this. It's not their job to analyze just how upset/sad/depressed someone is going to be about a legal case, and act accordingly.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    We have no obligation to not feel bad feelings, to not say bad words about MIT. That's what we're going to do. Organizations have no conscience and no "human rights". Kicking an organization for bad judgement is cool.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Consider the attitudes we have towards schoolyard or internet bullies when their victims commit suicide. If the people weev harassed had committed suicide, what would you hesitate to blame weev?
  - GrinningFool 13y ago
    Well, yes. Again - the mentality that leads to suicide does not develop in isolation. It is not "weev has picked on me and I am a loser and have no choice or other way out". That may be back-breaking straw, but it's not the underlying issue. There are a host of contributing factors that can add up to this - so while it's great when we have a face to assign to The Bad Guy in these cases, and it's a perfectly natural response... it's seldom the correct one.
denzil_correa 13y ago
Is this true? This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly, “We don’t want this prosecution to go forward” – and Steve Heymann and Carmen Ortiz would have had no case. Was there a possibility where MIT could say that they did not want any prosecution?
- gonzo 13y ago
  Of course there was. JSOR did, and once they had, the entire case hung on MIT's claims of "hacking".
  - mpyne 13y ago
    JSTOR dropping their support for the prosecution didn't remove the evidence pertaining to their side of the story from the case. What Aaron did to JSTOR was as relevant for the prosecution after JSTOR asked them to stop as it was before, it's not as if the prosecution was then limited to only evidence obtained from the MIT side.
- stonemetal 13y ago
  If MIT had said his access was authorized all of the CFAA charges would have gone away. The wire fraud charges I am not sure about, but most of the charges brought against him where about unauthorized access, so authorizing his access would have made them not applicable.
- tzs 13y ago
  It's much more complicated and subtle than she is making it out to be. There was a good discussion of this on Reddit. See this comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1jcoog/mit_releases_report_on_its_actions_in_the_aaron/cbdhwbm http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1jcoog/mit_relea... and the surrounding comments.
  - 13y ago
Zigurd 13y ago
What, will these hands ne'er be clean? No more o’ that, my lord, no more o’ that. You mar all with this
- kaonashi 13y ago
  You're comparing the author to Lady MacBeth?
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    [EDIT:] The Abelson report is a huge effort at hand-washing. [Clearer?] Here's the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.
    - kaonashi 13y ago
      e: Much.
delinka 13y ago
"...That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly..." Well, the author's proposal for action by MIT is also not "neutral." Though I hold the same opinion about how MIT should have acted, I feel it's [inadvertently] written with this juxtaposition that goes from a level-headed "that's not neutral and here's why" to an emotional "they should have done X instead" which I fear reduces the effect of this statement. However, there's been boatloads of public outcry over this whole thing and I'm certain I feel that MIT should address each and every issue people continue to raise, regardless of the how emotionally charged such statements might be.
willholloway 13y ago
A sane nation would have recognized Aaron as an incredibly valuable asset to the entire society. The American criminal justice system saw him as a dangerous threat and offered only cruel and unusual punishment. The facts point to just one conclusion: we live under an irrational and pathological criminal justice system.
ferdo 13y ago
The historical info contained in JSTOR should be free, just as Aaron envisioned. MIT long ago lost its shine as a conduit for information and has now become just another McBiz. Long live Aaron's spirit and his zeal.
thezilch 13y ago
MIT's a bully, and they should educate themselves on the lengths taken by their state's legislature to help prevent suicide [0]. Aaron might have played a part in his own actions, but if MIT is OK with Aaron being classified a cyber criminal, I'm OK with setting them on the express path to blame. [0] http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/04/grieving_family_by_his_side_governor_signs_legislation/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...
falk 13y ago
If you don't agree with how MIT handled this situation, protest the MIT hackathon in October and any other MIT related events.
- wetmore 13y ago
  I believe the hackathon is student-run so you're not doing much by protesting it besides hurting the efforts of some unrelated students.
- bfaviero 13y ago
  Nobody in the administration or faculty has anything to do with this hackathon...... it is entirely student-run. -An organizer of the hackathon
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
SCAQTony 13y ago
MIT obviously is conducting it's affairs like a business. Therefore, asking MIT to do the "soul searching" they promised is like asking Dow Chemical* to do so some "soul searching" searching after the the Bhopal chemical spill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide
suprgeek 13y ago
MIT "Negotiators" were the ones primarily holding out against the "No Jail" plea-bargain [1] which would have otherwise succeeded in getting Aaron the commensurate penalty for his actions. Instead, because of their pigheadedness, the govt. got a chance to threaten him him with a very large Jail sentence leading to the completely avoidable tragedy that happened. Whitewash indeed...his death is certainly attributable to MIT & Carmen Ortiz, et al. [1] http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_refused_pl.php http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_ref...
- danielweber 13y ago
  For what it's worth, MIT says it told the prosecutors otherwise: MIT’s counsel stated that, while the government might believe that jail time was appropriate in this case, the government should not be under the impression that MIT wanted a jail sentence for Aaron Swartz. The prosecutor responded that the government believed that some custody was appropriate. He said the government had to consider not only the views of the immediate victims, but also general deterrence of others.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    That falls short of telling the government that they should not seek jail time. It is simply informing them that MIT itself was not asking for jail time, not that MIT felt jail time was going too far. At what point did MIT protest the prosecutor's actions in any way whatsoever? MIT was complicit, handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so (compare with JSTOR).
    - danielweber 13y ago
      MIT was complicit, handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so I'm not sure we are going to have productive discussion if you say this. Either you read the report and think "handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so" is an accurate assessment, when MIT explicitly denies turning over anything outside of what was required by subpoenas except for the first few days around the arrest, when they didn't realize that the guy breaking into their network was an internet hero and allowed to do that. Or you didn't read the report. For others watching the conversation, I'll point out other things from that very page: • The prosecutor said that, pre-indictment, he had wanted to approach the case on a human level, not punitively. To this extent he made an extremely reasonable proposal, and was “dumb-founded” by Swartz’s response. • The prosecutor said that the straw that broke the camel’s back was that when he indicted the case, and allowed Swartz to come to the courthouse as opposed to being arrested, Swartz used the time to post a “wild Internet campaign” in an effort to drum up support. This was a “foolish” move that moved the case “from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level.” The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally. [...] The lead prosecutor’s comment about a “wild Internet campaign” orchestrated by Swartz to drum up support made MIT concerned that any public statements that MIT might make on Swartz’s behalf could backfire.
freyr 13y ago
"Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so." It's natural to look for someone to blame. Should we lay the blame on MIT? If they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? Or JSTOR? In any case, aiding in prosecution did not cause his death directly. The decision to commit suicide was ultimately his own. Of all the options he had available to him, he consciously chose that option. I'm reminded of a quote by Viktor Frankl: "Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation." Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't? According to his close friends' personal accounts, Aaron suffered from suicidal thoughts and depression for many years. Long before the JSTOR case, and long before MIT ever got involved. As long as we're speculating about things we can't know for sure, I'm guessing depression was really to blame for his suicide. That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > If they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? False dilemma. I am capable of blaming both.
  - freyr 13y ago
    Sure. Are you blaming them both for the same thing? And what is that, exactly? His anguish, his death, both?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I consider both to be partially responsible for his death. Not legally, but morally.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  yep, blame the victim. People on HN like to remind others about need to take responsibility for one's own actions. They did it to Aaron before his death and do this after. Being a passive observer while something awful is being done to another human being is a bit uncomfortable, it is much easy and self-comforting to our consciousness to think about the victim as being the one who is solely responsible for and is causing the awful things being done to him.
vehementi 13y ago
Kinda sucks that almost every post here is getting distracted by the "he would be alive today" bit.
comrh 13y ago
Some serious misunderstanding of mental illness in this thread and on HN in general that seems to raise its ugly head with news about Aaron.
whitehat2k9 13y ago
>his report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. I'm sorry, but where exactly did this report, or any other literature on the case, indicate that MIT refused access to the defense's lawyers?
- Maxious 13y ago
  Page 76: "MIT did not, reciprocally, voluntarily provide to the defense the same documents that it provided to the government. Similarly, MIT did not produce to the defense, even though requested by subpoena, documents that the defense sought from MIT but that MIT had already provided to the government."
  - whitehat2k9 13y ago
    Well yes, but they mention that the reason for this was because the defense could reasonably expect to obtain these documents from the prosecution, and that they didn't want to duplicate their efforts by re-compiling all the evidence.

381 points by woodhull 13y ago

>Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. This may in fact be true, but this claim is leveled with the implication that MIT is responsible for his death. They surely could have responded better; taking a "non-neutral" position (actively supporting lessened punishment), but this claim seems overreaching and narrow.

scarmig 13y ago
For context, Taren was Aaron's partner at the time of his death and was the person who found him hanging.
- pkfrank 13y ago
  Thanks. I appreciate that context, and I apologize if my original comment was insensitive. It must be terribly painful to have strangers commenting on the loss of a loved one, especially in such a politically charged and public arena.
  - larrys 13y ago
    "I apologize if my original comment was insensitive." It's sad that there is a need to apologize such as you did. This is one of these issues in which ordinary discourse is not possible. You would have to spend so much time padding your thoughts about what you might think to lessen the impact on those that are highly sensitive for one reason or another.
    - schrijver 13y ago
      Well I’m sorry but that’s a pretty basic part of the human experience. While there are some situation in which one can be blunt and straightforward, other situations require all the tact and empathy you can muster… Imagine turning someone down for a job interview. If the person cared for this job, every single word you say will be taken very personal and be mulled over afterwords. That means it is up to you to pick your words very carefully, and find a constructive phrasing.
      - larrys 13y ago
        "Imagine turning someone down for a job interview. If the person cared for this job" I know but this wasn't in response to someone who claimed they were directly connected to this case though.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    I don't think you were insensitive at all. My aim was to contextualize the blog post and the emotions that surely went into it. I'm always loath to say what amounts to "take what they say with a grain of salt, they're heavily emotionally invested." It's fair to say that that's the case here, though. I say that as someone who thinks MIT does have some level of culpability and have had the pleasure of interacting with the wonderful and brilliant person that Taren is.
- 1337biz 13y ago
  Had to google her too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taren_Stinebrickner-Kauffman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taren_Stinebrickner-Kauffman
- CaveTech 13y ago
  Yes but ultimately Aaron is responsible for his own death. He has his reasons for doing what he did, but it's not fair to give leniency to someone under threat of self harm. To be clear: I do feel the case against Aaron was unjust, but we can't give extra attention to a case due to suicide.
  - indlebe 13y ago
    He had no choice but he was responsible, right. Or are you implying that the should-be-deprecated-by-now idea of compatibilism has some hold?
- crb002 13y ago
  Taren is an extremely bright activist in her own right. I had the pleasure of working with her for a summer back in 2000 at the CIIR. http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/REU/2000/REUpres/FinalReport2_files/v3_document.htm http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/REU/2000/REUpres/FinalReport2_files... I wish I could track down her paper on southern states putting urban minority prisoners in rural white area prisons. They are put on the rural census and removed from urban census. Not only do they not get to vote, their representation power goes to the white rural voters.
- rdl 13y ago
  I'm really amazed she seems to have held up so well in spite of one of the most traumatic experiences imaginable.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I suspect that either fact alone would be enough to make Taren one of the most biased parties w.r.t. the MIT report though, so it's good to remind us of that context. Certainly it doesn't mean she's wrong, but we should think critically, just as we would if Ms. Ortiz were making a statement.
mpyne 13y ago
I think what's more concerning is that the same logic could be used to rebuke Aaron himself. "Aaron would be alive today if he'd only stopped before he decided to put a laptop in that server closet." Certainly the prosecution was overbearing, and MIT could have been more on Aaron's side. But if we're going to reach into the realm of "If X had done Y Aaron would be alive today" then I think it would be distressing to think how many X's there could be.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >then I think it would be distressing to think how many X's there could be. So how about we take the more obvious Xs and condemn THOSE? It's not like anyone blames Lincoln for going to the theater that day instead of having a quit dinner at home.
  - jmduke 13y ago
    Because those exercises are by definition rabbitholes. If JSTOR had failed their negotiations with the Royal Society of London in '99 and subsequently faded into obscurity, Aaron might still be alive today, etc. The idea that Aaron did something illegal and the idea that Aaron was treated incredibly poorly are not mutually exclusive.
    - erikpukinskis 13y ago
      > Because those exercises are by definition rabbitholes What definition of what term makes that case for you? You seem to basically be denying the concept of causality entirely, which, fine: causality is a brittle concept. But we can still use it to help us reason around things. There are proximate causes and distal causes and all kinds of causes in between and beyond. These are messy, flawed concepts that are useful for trying to analyze systems. You act like you don't understand the distinction between the relationship between MIT and Aaron and the relationship between those negotiations and Aaron, but I am fairly certain you do.
      - saraid216 13y ago
coldtea 13y ago
>but this claim seems overreaching and narrow. What's with this fear of reaching a conclusion and assigning blame? Better give the individual that hanged himself the benefit of the doubt, than an organization like MIT that acted against him.
- mpyne 13y ago
  If all you're worried about is finding someone to point a finger at then your plan may well work. If you want to prevent the next gifted hacker from hanging themselves, however, then it pays to search for the truth so that lessons can be learned from what actually happened, not merely from what scenario received the most benefit of the doubt. Note I'm not saying the MIT Report constitutes the truth if Taren's assertions don't.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    If you want to prevent the next gifted hacker from hanging themselves... Is that what we're doing here? I thought it was more about MIT administration being absolute shits to important, creative, contributing members of the community, and how they might stop doing that. Swartz's suicide is not the only thing that makes MIT's behavior shameful. Ideally, next time the administration will correct their craven, copsucking behavior before it gets to that point.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      As far as I can tell the only thing MIT did that was disagreeable was not pushing harder against the felony variant of the CFAA charges. "creating, contributing" member or not, Aaron didn't deserve extra privileges (or warrant worse punishment) compared to anyone else who had DDoS'ed MIT's network and repeatedly gained unauthorized access to their internal subnet. MIT should not have allowed themselves to be used in throwing the book, but I would hardly call them a bunch of absolute shits over this.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >If you want to prevent the next gifted hacker from hanging themselves No, I don't want to do that (not that I could). What I want to do is to prevent the next gifted hacker from being prosecuted for BS and under overblown terms.
CatMtKing 13y ago
I guess the point is that "doing nothing" is not "being neutral," especially when in a position of power.
danso 13y ago
I think the distinction you make here is important...that it's possible to criticize MIT's actions and policies without going the extra step and laying Aaron's death at their feet...in fact, I think it's ultimately more productive to treat the two things as orthogonal, because the MIT people who may be at fault may resist/stonewall heavily if admission of fault is tied to complicity in Aaron's death. Taren's eulogy for Aaron was one of the best eulogies/call-to-actions I've watched (http://www.livestream.com/democracynow/video?clipId=pla_f83c80fe-0fc0-474c-9936-efe8659466f6 http://www.livestream.com/democracynow/video?clipId=pla_f83c...) and it sheds some more light on the difficulties Aaron was facing in this case. However, when looking at additional facts, including those provided by Taren and others close to Aaron, it kind of rubs me the wrong way to treat the prosecution's causality of Aaron's suicide as fact. via Taren: http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/42260548767/why-aaron-died http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/42260548767/why-aaron-died > I don’t know exactly why Aaron killed himself. I don’t know exactly what was going through his mind. If I had known those things on January 11, if I had even known the right questions to ask, maybe I could have stopped him. Since January 11, I think about it every hour of every day. > The Aaron I knew was active. He worked out most days until he got the flu two weeks before he died. It's hard to second-guess someone who lived with Aaron and say, "Well, us armchair psychologists know better than you"...but the fact is, Taren was the closest person to Aaron and yet can't identify any particular warning signs that Aaron was going to kill himself. She provides compelling evidence that the trial was a huge burden on Aaron...but the question here is: why suicide on that day? There was a procedural deadline, but it didn't seem much more of a conclusive event than anything so far. It's not as if Aaron had been convicted, was on house arrest, and had just heard his appeal had been denied. But as Taren said, Aaron was unusually sick up until the day of his suicide...at least sick enough to stop exercising, which, pedantic as it sounds, is a huge factor in mood swings. Enough to cause someone to commit suicide?... Who knows? I guess why this all bothers me is that, by arguing that Aaron's death was conclusively caused by malicious actors perpetuates the misunderstanding that suicide and depression are, in general, caused by life circumstances....but it seems that some depression is due to physiological factors that aren't related to the "bigger picture". People who face horrific tragedy don't often kill themselves; people who seem to live in enviable circumstances sometimes do. The world would make more sense if everyone committed suicide out of fear, hopelessness, or even weakness (as those who accused Aaron of "rage-quitting" seemed to do)...but this isn't the case, and this belief is unhelpful for those who suffer depression because of physiological, treatable factors...but who may avoid treatment because they think, "Well, I'm not being persecuted, so I must not really be depressed and thus have no reason to seek help" I know I'm being naively idealistic here...because if Aaron hadn't died, if he had only suffered a drawn out trial and even a conviction, the call to reform the U.S attorney's office and the MIT administration would have much more diffuse support without the catalyst of his death. But I do think it's worth being mindful that the issue of treating depression isn't obfuscated. Either way, what a tragedy. Reading Taren's words again really underscores how much of a loss Aaron's death was for civic reform.
gregcohn 13y ago
This comment and the thread nested under it misrepresent the point Taren makes in her statement, which is not that MIT caused his death, but that MIT is making a claim of neutrality that is not true. It is clearly true that Shwartz's prosecution was a major factor in his suicide, and, according to Taren, it is equally clear that MIT was a non-neutral party in assisting this prosecution. If these statements are true; it is perfectly reasonable to call misrepresentations by MIT about its participation a "whitewash" and a serious matter.
silentmars 13y ago
There is a bit of legal knowledge that may be relevant here, at least in terms of framing this question of who is responsible. In many jurisdictions (in the US) the legal standard of 'negligence' has two requirements. First, proximate cause. That's the "but for" part, that op mentions here. "But for MIT's actions, Aaron would be alive today." The other part is foreknowledge. Someone must have known, or reasonably should have known, that their actions would result in the bad consequence to meet this second standard. I don't think it would be fair to say that MIT could reasonably have foreseen Swartz's suicide. It's interesting to note that Heymann, the federal prosecutor, arguably does meet both of these standards. But for his overzealous -- and I would add abusive -- prosecution, Swartz would still be alive. Further, Swartz's lawyers warned Heymann the day before that Swartz was an imminent risk of suicide, so it seems pretty safe to say that he also meets the foreknowledge standard. I want both Heymann and Ortiz to be fired, and my sense of vengeance wants it to be both public and messy. Wishful thinking. IANAL, blah blah blah and all that.

crb002 13y ago

Ouch. Glad Taren is holding their feet to the fire.

danso 13y ago

> Here are the facts: This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. That’s not neutral. Those aren't really facts, those are assertions that could use some documentation. Which specific witnesses and pieces of evidence did the defense request (and is there a record of this) but were denied to them (and is there a record of that)?

speeder 13y ago
My guess this is the thing people are trying to release, and MIT is blocking.
at-fates-hands 13y ago
>>>Which specific witnesses and pieces of evidence did the defense request (and is there a record of this) but were denied to them (and is there a record of that)? There should be record of both and if I'm not wrong, not handing over discovery materials to the defense is against the law. This is the same type of behavior Zimmerman's defense team alleged when Angela Korey failed to turn over evidence from Trayvon's phone.

ddod 13y ago

It seems like objecting to the FOIA is all the report we need on how wrong/right their actions were. If they think that whatever in there is damaging to them or likely to cause people enough anger to create a dangerous climate for those involved, it doesn't really matter what MIT's internal report characterizes things as.

cinquemb 13y ago
It's interesting that a hour in, you are the only one to have mentioned how MIT objected to the FOIA request and the governments compliance. What we have and have had for some time is a democracy (or republic depending on which brand of kool aid one drinks) behind closed doors, by a government that is publicly funded submitting to the will of private institutions. Not that what is going on here is better than anyone else…

Pro_bity 13y ago

This has to be difficult to stomach. I am very sorry for your loss.

GrinningFool 13y ago

This is probably going to cost me karma, but here goes: "Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did" So he has no responsibility for the decisions he made, up to and including the final one? Yes, MIT's actions may have had influence. Or they may have hastened the inevitable - a person who makes this choice is not untroubled to begin with, and it's never about just one thing. Ultimately, it was his choice in the end. The responsibility is his.

JonFish85 13y ago
Couldn't agree more. MIT had no obligation, nevermind "a moral imperative" to do anything to try to make him more comfortable with legal procedings. It's sad that he felt that his only way out was via suicide, I can certainly sympathize with the trapped feeling. But let's not blame MIT for this. It's not their job to analyze just how upset/sad/depressed someone is going to be about a legal case, and act accordingly.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  We have no obligation to not feel bad feelings, to not say bad words about MIT. That's what we're going to do. Organizations have no conscience and no "human rights". Kicking an organization for bad judgement is cool.
jlgreco 13y ago
Consider the attitudes we have towards schoolyard or internet bullies when their victims commit suicide. If the people weev harassed had committed suicide, what would you hesitate to blame weev?
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  Well, yes. Again - the mentality that leads to suicide does not develop in isolation. It is not "weev has picked on me and I am a loser and have no choice or other way out". That may be back-breaking straw, but it's not the underlying issue. There are a host of contributing factors that can add up to this - so while it's great when we have a face to assign to The Bad Guy in these cases, and it's a perfectly natural response... it's seldom the correct one.

denzil_correa 13y ago

Is this true? This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly, “We don’t want this prosecution to go forward” – and Steve Heymann and Carmen Ortiz would have had no case. Was there a possibility where MIT could say that they did not want any prosecution?

gonzo 13y ago
Of course there was. JSOR did, and once they had, the entire case hung on MIT's claims of "hacking".
- mpyne 13y ago
  JSTOR dropping their support for the prosecution didn't remove the evidence pertaining to their side of the story from the case. What Aaron did to JSTOR was as relevant for the prosecution after JSTOR asked them to stop as it was before, it's not as if the prosecution was then limited to only evidence obtained from the MIT side.
stonemetal 13y ago
If MIT had said his access was authorized all of the CFAA charges would have gone away. The wire fraud charges I am not sure about, but most of the charges brought against him where about unauthorized access, so authorizing his access would have made them not applicable.
tzs 13y ago
It's much more complicated and subtle than she is making it out to be. There was a good discussion of this on Reddit. See this comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1jcoog/mit_releases_report_on_its_actions_in_the_aaron/cbdhwbm http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1jcoog/mit_relea... and the surrounding comments.
- 13y ago

Zigurd 13y ago

What, will these hands ne'er be clean? No more o’ that, my lord, no more o’ that. You mar all with this

kaonashi 13y ago
You're comparing the author to Lady MacBeth?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  [EDIT:] The Abelson report is a huge effort at hand-washing. [Clearer?] Here's the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.
  - kaonashi 13y ago
    e: Much.

delinka 13y ago

"...That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly..." Well, the author's proposal for action by MIT is also not "neutral." Though I hold the same opinion about how MIT should have acted, I feel it's [inadvertently] written with this juxtaposition that goes from a level-headed "that's not neutral and here's why" to an emotional "they should have done X instead" which I fear reduces the effect of this statement. However, there's been boatloads of public outcry over this whole thing and I'm certain I feel that MIT should address each and every issue people continue to raise, regardless of the how emotionally charged such statements might be.

willholloway 13y ago

A sane nation would have recognized Aaron as an incredibly valuable asset to the entire society. The American criminal justice system saw him as a dangerous threat and offered only cruel and unusual punishment. The facts point to just one conclusion: we live under an irrational and pathological criminal justice system.

ferdo 13y ago

The historical info contained in JSTOR should be free, just as Aaron envisioned. MIT long ago lost its shine as a conduit for information and has now become just another McBiz. Long live Aaron's spirit and his zeal.

thezilch 13y ago

MIT's a bully, and they should educate themselves on the lengths taken by their state's legislature to help prevent suicide [0]. Aaron might have played a part in his own actions, but if MIT is OK with Aaron being classified a cyber criminal, I'm OK with setting them on the express path to blame. [0] http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/04/grieving_family_by_his_side_governor_signs_legislation/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...

falk 13y ago

If you don't agree with how MIT handled this situation, protest the MIT hackathon in October and any other MIT related events.

wetmore 13y ago
I believe the hackathon is student-run so you're not doing much by protesting it besides hurting the efforts of some unrelated students.
bfaviero 13y ago
Nobody in the administration or faculty has anything to do with this hackathon...... it is entirely student-run. -An organizer of the hackathon

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

SCAQTony 13y ago

MIT obviously is conducting it's affairs like a business. Therefore, asking MIT to do the "soul searching" they promised is like asking Dow Chemical* to do so some "soul searching" searching after the the Bhopal chemical spill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide

suprgeek 13y ago

MIT "Negotiators" were the ones primarily holding out against the "No Jail" plea-bargain [1] which would have otherwise succeeded in getting Aaron the commensurate penalty for his actions. Instead, because of their pigheadedness, the govt. got a chance to threaten him him with a very large Jail sentence leading to the completely avoidable tragedy that happened. Whitewash indeed...his death is certainly attributable to MIT & Carmen Ortiz, et al. [1] http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_refused_pl.php http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_ref...

danielweber 13y ago
For what it's worth, MIT says it told the prosecutors otherwise: MIT’s counsel stated that, while the government might believe that jail time was appropriate in this case, the government should not be under the impression that MIT wanted a jail sentence for Aaron Swartz. The prosecutor responded that the government believed that some custody was appropriate. He said the government had to consider not only the views of the immediate victims, but also general deterrence of others.
- betterunix 13y ago
  That falls short of telling the government that they should not seek jail time. It is simply informing them that MIT itself was not asking for jail time, not that MIT felt jail time was going too far. At what point did MIT protest the prosecutor's actions in any way whatsoever? MIT was complicit, handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so (compare with JSTOR).
  - danielweber 13y ago
    MIT was complicit, handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so I'm not sure we are going to have productive discussion if you say this. Either you read the report and think "handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so" is an accurate assessment, when MIT explicitly denies turning over anything outside of what was required by subpoenas except for the first few days around the arrest, when they didn't realize that the guy breaking into their network was an internet hero and allowed to do that. Or you didn't read the report. For others watching the conversation, I'll point out other things from that very page: • The prosecutor said that, pre-indictment, he had wanted to approach the case on a human level, not punitively. To this extent he made an extremely reasonable proposal, and was “dumb-founded” by Swartz’s response. • The prosecutor said that the straw that broke the camel’s back was that when he indicted the case, and allowed Swartz to come to the courthouse as opposed to being arrested, Swartz used the time to post a “wild Internet campaign” in an effort to drum up support. This was a “foolish” move that moved the case “from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level.” The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally. [...] The lead prosecutor’s comment about a “wild Internet campaign” orchestrated by Swartz to drum up support made MIT concerned that any public statements that MIT might make on Swartz’s behalf could backfire.

freyr 13y ago

"Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so." It's natural to look for someone to blame. Should we lay the blame on MIT? If they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? Or JSTOR? In any case, aiding in prosecution did not cause his death directly. The decision to commit suicide was ultimately his own. Of all the options he had available to him, he consciously chose that option. I'm reminded of a quote by Viktor Frankl: "Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation." Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't? According to his close friends' personal accounts, Aaron suffered from suicidal thoughts and depression for many years. Long before the JSTOR case, and long before MIT ever got involved. As long as we're speculating about things we can't know for sure, I'm guessing depression was really to blame for his suicide. That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way.

jlgreco 13y ago
> If they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? False dilemma. I am capable of blaming both.
- freyr 13y ago
  Sure. Are you blaming them both for the same thing? And what is that, exactly? His anguish, his death, both?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I consider both to be partially responsible for his death. Not legally, but morally.
VladRussian2 13y ago
yep, blame the victim. People on HN like to remind others about need to take responsibility for one's own actions. They did it to Aaron before his death and do this after. Being a passive observer while something awful is being done to another human being is a bit uncomfortable, it is much easy and self-comforting to our consciousness to think about the victim as being the one who is solely responsible for and is causing the awful things being done to him.

vehementi 13y ago

Kinda sucks that almost every post here is getting distracted by the "he would be alive today" bit.

comrh 13y ago

Some serious misunderstanding of mental illness in this thread and on HN in general that seems to raise its ugly head with news about Aaron.

whitehat2k9 13y ago

>his report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. I'm sorry, but where exactly did this report, or any other literature on the case, indicate that MIT refused access to the defense's lawyers?

Maxious 13y ago
Page 76: "MIT did not, reciprocally, voluntarily provide to the defense the same documents that it provided to the government. Similarly, MIT did not produce to the defense, even though requested by subpoena, documents that the defense sought from MIT but that MIT had already provided to the government."
- whitehat2k9 13y ago
  Well yes, but they mention that the reason for this was because the defense could reasonably expect to obtain these documents from the prosecution, and that they didn't want to duplicate their efforts by re-compiling all the evidence.