4 ms·

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 s

by 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".

by robg 13y ago

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".