4 ms·

From the perspective of MIT, Swartz broke the law and he wasn't an MIT student. If I had to guess, the way everything developed after that is probably rather be

From the perspective of MIT, Swartz broke the law and he wasn't an MIT student. If I had to guess, the way everything developed after that is probably rather befuddling to them. MIT does not have as much control over the DOJ, or the mental health of non-students, as you think they do. By contrast, defending innocent students is part of a university's job description.

legutierr 13y ago
There is some evidence that MIT was not passive in the Aaron Swartz case, but took active steps to encourage or facilitate the prosecution: “The report...makes very clear that MIT was actually not neutral,” Robert Swartz said. “MIT called in the police and then violated the law by providing the government with information and material from Aaron’s computer without a court order. Then they lied to me about those facts.” [0] "When it came to the most fundamental question in the case—was Aaron authorized to access MIT’s network or not?—MIT maintains that the feds simply never asked. And MIT never spoke up. ... Bob maintains that in Aaron’s case, MIT’s 'neutrality' was in fact an abdication. By its silence, Bob says, the administration betrayed its mission." [1] And please don't presume to tell me what I think. [0] http://business.time.com/2013/07/31/aaron-swartzs-father-blasts-mit-report-says-school-wasnt-neutral/ http://business.time.com/2013/07/31/aaron-swartzs-father-bla... [1] http://boingboing.net/2014/01/03/aaron-swartzs-father-bob-sw.html http://boingboing.net/2014/01/03/aaron-swartzs-father-bob-sw...
- cynicalkane 13y ago
  And please don't presume to tell me what I think. It's normal, in human communication, to try to draw inferences by what you say and how it is said. It's really tedious to try to communicate in any other fashion. It very strongly looks like you are in the "MIT helped to kill Swartz" camp, and your follow-up post, despite its righteous indignance, just seems to be more of that point of view.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - legutierr 13y ago
    What I meant was, I do not hold the viewpoint you attribute to me. Your inferences are wrong.
- robg 13y ago
  There is some evidence that MIT was not passive in the Aaron Swartz case, but took active steps to encourage or facilitate the prosecution Sadly, he wasn't a student, staff, or employee of MIT. You seem to be missing this crucial point. Had he been, I have little doubt his situation would have been handled very differently - from how they reported Aaron's actions to how they did not fight for a particular outcome.
  - rasz_pl 13y ago
    Star was a student, and from what I remember MIT dropped her under the bus as soon as the airpord LED IED case showed up
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      Yeah, but she was a giiirl, and therefore couldn't have been a true hacker, so she must have been a terrorist. </sarcasm>
  - legutierr 13y ago
    In my original post I noted "the fact that Swartz was not himself a student at MIT" as a key difference between the cases. I also wrote "maybe the differences between the the cases are actually what is significant [in explaining the difference in response between the cases]". How am I missing this point? I definitely agree that his situation would have been handled differently had he been directly affiliated with the university. The point I am making with the above post is that MIT was not entirely passive in Aaron's prosecution, in response to what cynicalkane wrote about MIT having "control" over the DOJ. MIT didn't need to "control" the DOJ in order to have influence over the course of their investigation and the prosecution. In fact, MIT's own internal report, which Aaron's father is citing in the quotes above, admits as much. This shouldn't be controversial.
    - saurik 13y ago
      You wrote a massive comment leaning into a position and then tacked on the end a potential "or maybe it is this benign thing, and not my accusation". You should not be surprised when people then react to what you said with "you are leaning in the wrong direction and here are all the reasons why that benign thing is probably the case".

legutierr 13y ago

There is some evidence that MIT was not passive in the Aaron Swartz case, but took active steps to encourage or facilitate the prosecution: “The report...makes very clear that MIT was actually not neutral,” Robert Swartz said. “MIT called in the police and then violated the law by providing the government with information and material from Aaron’s computer without a court order. Then they lied to me about those facts.” [0] "When it came to the most fundamental question in the case—was Aaron authorized to access MIT’s network or not?—MIT maintains that the feds simply never asked. And MIT never spoke up. ... Bob maintains that in Aaron’s case, MIT’s 'neutrality' was in fact an abdication. By its silence, Bob says, the administration betrayed its mission." [1] And please don't presume to tell me what I think. [0] http://business.time.com/2013/07/31/aaron-swartzs-father-blasts-mit-report-says-school-wasnt-neutral/ http://business.time.com/2013/07/31/aaron-swartzs-father-bla... [1] http://boingboing.net/2014/01/03/aaron-swartzs-father-bob-sw.html http://boingboing.net/2014/01/03/aaron-swartzs-father-bob-sw...

cynicalkane 13y ago
And please don't presume to tell me what I think. It's normal, in human communication, to try to draw inferences by what you say and how it is said. It's really tedious to try to communicate in any other fashion. It very strongly looks like you are in the "MIT helped to kill Swartz" camp, and your follow-up post, despite its righteous indignance, just seems to be more of that point of view.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- legutierr 13y ago
  What I meant was, I do not hold the viewpoint you attribute to me. Your inferences are wrong.
robg 13y ago
There is some evidence that MIT was not passive in the Aaron Swartz case, but took active steps to encourage or facilitate the prosecution Sadly, he wasn't a student, staff, or employee of MIT. You seem to be missing this crucial point. Had he been, I have little doubt his situation would have been handled very differently - from how they reported Aaron's actions to how they did not fight for a particular outcome.
- rasz_pl 13y ago
  Star was a student, and from what I remember MIT dropped her under the bus as soon as the airpord LED IED case showed up
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    Yeah, but she was a giiirl, and therefore couldn't have been a true hacker, so she must have been a terrorist. </sarcasm>
- legutierr 13y ago
  In my original post I noted "the fact that Swartz was not himself a student at MIT" as a key difference between the cases. I also wrote "maybe the differences between the the cases are actually what is significant [in explaining the difference in response between the cases]". How am I missing this point? I definitely agree that his situation would have been handled differently had he been directly affiliated with the university. The point I am making with the above post is that MIT was not entirely passive in Aaron's prosecution, in response to what cynicalkane wrote about MIT having "control" over the DOJ. MIT didn't need to "control" the DOJ in order to have influence over the course of their investigation and the prosecution. In fact, MIT's own internal report, which Aaron's father is citing in the quotes above, admits as much. This shouldn't be controversial.
  - saurik 13y ago
    You wrote a massive comment leaning into a position and then tacked on the end a potential "or maybe it is this benign thing, and not my accusation". You should not be surprised when people then react to what you said with "you are leaning in the wrong direction and here are all the reasons why that benign thing is probably the case".