4 ms·
Is this true? This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing
by 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 agoOf course there was. JSOR did, and once they had, the entire case hung on MIT's claims of "hacking".
- mpyne 13y agoJSTOR 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 agoIf 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 agoIt'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.
- tptacek 13y agoWow, that is a really interesting comment. Thanks for posting it.