5 ms·

Oh boy, where to start? * Swartz did not create something novel. Tidbits did. * Swartz was not an MIT student. Tidbits authors were. * Swartz violated polici

by beering 13y ago

Oh boy, where to start? * Swartz did not create something novel. Tidbits did. * Swartz was not an MIT student. Tidbits authors were. * Swartz violated policies/rules of a couple non-profits (MIT and JSTOR). Tidbits did not. * Swartz misused MIT computer resources. Tidbits did not. * Jurisdiction in Swartz' case made sense. It doesn't make sense in the Tidbits situation. * Swartz' case was a federal incident. Tidbits incident is (currently) a state of NJ matter. * Swartz was charged by the feds. Tidbits has not (yet) been charged by anyone. Whatever opinion you hold about Swartz' case, I think you should understand that it's not very similar to this one, outside of the fact that MIT is involved in both.

jkelsey 13y ago
I think your all points are fairly taken, except, * Swartz did not create something novel. Tidbits did. Ha, what?! RSS, Creative Commons, Reddit, Demand Progress, for starters. Edit: Okay, a few people have pointed out the context of legal action being pursued against against individuals. I suppose I'm being reactionary, so I withdraw my point.
- mrmincent 13y ago
  Aaron was involved with a lot of cool stuff, but his case had nothing to do with anything you've mentioned.
- vletmixutechre 13y ago
  beering is clearly speaking within the context of the Swartz's legal troubles. Within that context, beering's comments are valid.
legutierr 13y ago
I don't think you even read half my comment. If you had, you would have seen that I already pointed out that there are big differences between the two cases, and that I noted two of the more significant differences, both of which you repeat in your list. Furthermore, the last sentence of my comment already recognizes that the difference in response may be attributable to differences between the cases, rather than other factors. So what are you criticizing? Nevertheless, I do think that the idea that these cases are completely unrelated is off the mark. The most significant PR challenge that Reif has faced in his tenure has been the Aaron Swartz case, and his response to that case has been roundly criticized in the national press (albeit most vociferously by people close to Aaron). Regardless of what you think of MIT's response in Aaron Swartz's case, you must recognize Reif would be remiss not to recognize the parallels between the two cases: parallels between the narratives, parallels in how MIT community members (and the hacker community generally) have reacted to the narratives, parallels in how the press will likely report on both cases. From a PR perspective, this story can easily become a continuation of the Aaron Swartz affair, if MIT is not careful. This letter may not be a cynically calculated PR response meant to deflect the kind of criticism MIT suffered after the Aaron Swartz tragedy, but it can nonetheless be assessed in relation to MIT's response to Aaron's arrest. At minimum, this letter is a recognition that a university can insert itself between prosecutors and students, and stand up for its community principals when they are under assault. Supporters of Aaron Swartz have been looking for precisely that from MIT for quite some time.
- cynicalkane 13y ago
  it can nonetheless be assessed in relation to MIT's response to Aaron's arrest. At minimum, this letter is a recognition that a university can insert itself between prosecutors and students You're still talking about Swartz as if he was part of the MIT community in some strongly meaningful sense. He was not.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    To say that Aaron was not part of the MIT community is disingenuous at best. Perhaps your username gives you away.
    - hueving 13y ago
      Was Aaron a student at MIT?
    - qq66 13y ago
      MIT has a technical definition of "MIT Community," which I believe includes students, faculty, staff, and affiliates (not alumni, I believe). There is of course the more day-to-day meaning of community, but there are specific policies that apply to members of the MIT Community that don't apply elsewhere.
      - sitkack 13y ago
        Overly minced words turn to mush.
      - brians 13y ago
        Well, that could be true. But it's not. Check MIT's own definition, at the first Google hit for "MIT Community" and the shockingly predictable URL HTTP://web.mit.edu/community : MIT's diverse community — comprising students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and more — work together on more than research and education. Outside of the classroom, student clubs, staff organizations and religious life groups are just some of the ways community comes together at the Institute.
- 13y ago
shawn-butler 13y ago
I admit to having some bias, but your bullet-points are unsound. To each in turn: * Swartz was in the process of creating something novel for which public data sets with a fair market value of zero dollars "housed" in JSTOR was required. * Admission status is irrelevant. MIT is and always has been an open campus. * Very true. You and the authors of Tidbits and most likely every reader of this comment located in the US also violated several policies / rules of their state, local, federal governments just by waking up this morning, taking a shower, and cooking breakfast. If you are involved in a creative endeavor of any significance you will find it almost necessary to bend/break rules of institutions that will in turn benefit from that very creativity. * Very true. You are currently also violating the EULA of several software applications misusing your own computer resources. * Debatable. The Computer Fraud Abuse Act under which he was charged covers only "protected computers" namely those owned by US Govt, banks/financial institutions, or those engaged in "interstate commerce." Power-hungry and technologically illiterate authorities have rendered basically every computer hooked to a network including smartphones as "protected computers" engaged in commerce. * Partially true. Swartz was arraigned in Cambridge District Court charged with violations of state law of breaking and entering. Charges were dropped. * So you are saying if New Jersey charged the authors of Tidbits with a spurious charge it would be ok for MIT to not support them? I find the abuse of the subpoena power by New Jersey and the abuse of prosecutorial discretion in both cases to be poison fruits of the same tree. By the way, the common-sense amendments to CFAA, HR 2454 & S. 1196 need your support if they are ever going to make it out of committee. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.1196:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.1196:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.2454:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.2454:/

by beering 13y ago

jkelsey 13y ago

I think your all points are fairly taken, except, * Swartz did not create something novel. Tidbits did. Ha, what?! RSS, Creative Commons, Reddit, Demand Progress, for starters. Edit: Okay, a few people have pointed out the context of legal action being pursued against against individuals. I suppose I'm being reactionary, so I withdraw my point.

mrmincent 13y ago
Aaron was involved with a lot of cool stuff, but his case had nothing to do with anything you've mentioned.
vletmixutechre 13y ago
beering is clearly speaking within the context of the Swartz's legal troubles. Within that context, beering's comments are valid.

legutierr 13y ago

I don't think you even read half my comment. If you had, you would have seen that I already pointed out that there are big differences between the two cases, and that I noted two of the more significant differences, both of which you repeat in your list. Furthermore, the last sentence of my comment already recognizes that the difference in response may be attributable to differences between the cases, rather than other factors. So what are you criticizing? Nevertheless, I do think that the idea that these cases are completely unrelated is off the mark. The most significant PR challenge that Reif has faced in his tenure has been the Aaron Swartz case, and his response to that case has been roundly criticized in the national press (albeit most vociferously by people close to Aaron). Regardless of what you think of MIT's response in Aaron Swartz's case, you must recognize Reif would be remiss not to recognize the parallels between the two cases: parallels between the narratives, parallels in how MIT community members (and the hacker community generally) have reacted to the narratives, parallels in how the press will likely report on both cases. From a PR perspective, this story can easily become a continuation of the Aaron Swartz affair, if MIT is not careful. This letter may not be a cynically calculated PR response meant to deflect the kind of criticism MIT suffered after the Aaron Swartz tragedy, but it can nonetheless be assessed in relation to MIT's response to Aaron's arrest. At minimum, this letter is a recognition that a university can insert itself between prosecutors and students, and stand up for its community principals when they are under assault. Supporters of Aaron Swartz have been looking for precisely that from MIT for quite some time.

cynicalkane 13y ago
it can nonetheless be assessed in relation to MIT's response to Aaron's arrest. At minimum, this letter is a recognition that a university can insert itself between prosecutors and students You're still talking about Swartz as if he was part of the MIT community in some strongly meaningful sense. He was not.
- sitkack 13y ago
  To say that Aaron was not part of the MIT community is disingenuous at best. Perhaps your username gives you away.
  - hueving 13y ago
    Was Aaron a student at MIT?
  - qq66 13y ago
    MIT has a technical definition of "MIT Community," which I believe includes students, faculty, staff, and affiliates (not alumni, I believe). There is of course the more day-to-day meaning of community, but there are specific policies that apply to members of the MIT Community that don't apply elsewhere.
    - sitkack 13y ago
      Overly minced words turn to mush.
    - brians 13y ago
      Well, that could be true. But it's not. Check MIT's own definition, at the first Google hit for "MIT Community" and the shockingly predictable URL HTTP://web.mit.edu/community : MIT's diverse community — comprising students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and more — work together on more than research and education. Outside of the classroom, student clubs, staff organizations and religious life groups are just some of the ways community comes together at the Institute.
13y ago

shawn-butler 13y ago

I admit to having some bias, but your bullet-points are unsound. To each in turn: * Swartz was in the process of creating something novel for which public data sets with a fair market value of zero dollars "housed" in JSTOR was required. * Admission status is irrelevant. MIT is and always has been an open campus. * Very true. You and the authors of Tidbits and most likely every reader of this comment located in the US also violated several policies / rules of their state, local, federal governments just by waking up this morning, taking a shower, and cooking breakfast. If you are involved in a creative endeavor of any significance you will find it almost necessary to bend/break rules of institutions that will in turn benefit from that very creativity. * Very true. You are currently also violating the EULA of several software applications misusing your own computer resources. * Debatable. The Computer Fraud Abuse Act under which he was charged covers only "protected computers" namely those owned by US Govt, banks/financial institutions, or those engaged in "interstate commerce." Power-hungry and technologically illiterate authorities have rendered basically every computer hooked to a network including smartphones as "protected computers" engaged in commerce. * Partially true. Swartz was arraigned in Cambridge District Court charged with violations of state law of breaking and entering. Charges were dropped. * So you are saying if New Jersey charged the authors of Tidbits with a spurious charge it would be ok for MIT to not support them? I find the abuse of the subpoena power by New Jersey and the abuse of prosecutorial discretion in both cases to be poison fruits of the same tree. By the way, the common-sense amendments to CFAA, HR 2454 & S. 1196 need your support if they are ever going to make it out of committee. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.1196:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.1196:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.2454:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.2454:/