7 ms·

The inside story of MIT and Aaron Swartz

105 points by morisy 13y ago

pstuart 13y ago
> MIT has insisted it maintained an appropriate, even compassionate, neutrality toward a determined hacker who stole 4.8 million articles and eluded numerous efforts to stop him before the college sought help from police. The tone of this article is very defensive. "stole" vs. downloaded, both MIT and JSTOR didn't want to prosecute, yada yada.
unreal37 13y ago
MIT seems to be getting the heat from this, more than the prosecutors who went after him, and more than congress who created a flawed law. And how does JSTOR get a pass from all this?
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  JSTOR made it clear early on that all they wanted was the return or destruction of the downloaded articles. Schwartz complied. As I recall, JSTOR did express that they did not seek prosecution. There has been some speculation, though, that there was room for them to express this more forcefully. My take, after reading the Abelson committee report, was that it probably would have made no difference -- there was no indication that the US Attorney's office cared in the slightest whether the alleged victims wanted Schwartz to be prosecuted -- they were determined to do it anyway.
  - vpeters25 13y ago
    It seems Aaron expected that, by complying with JSTOR's request to destroy the downloads, the issue would go away. I wonder whether this was a sort of handshake agreement between Swartz lawyer and JSTOR the prosecutor choose to ignore. If so, a better lawyer could have advised to use the JSTOR downloads as leverage for a better plea.
  - forgottenpass 13y ago
    there was no indication that the US Attorney's office cared in the slightest whether the alleged victims wanted Schwartz to be prosecuted Nothing gives federal authorities a crime and punishment hardon like someone rocking the boat. The Middlesex DA didn't even want prison time [0]. [0] http://www.cnet.com/news/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until-feds-took-over-case-report-says/ http://www.cnet.com/news/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until-feds...
- partyfraser 13y ago
  They mention JSTOR 27 times in the article. Most of the MIT references also mention JSTOR. I don't think they are getting a pass.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Stephen Heymann should never handle a case more critical than car theft ever again. He is like a bulldozer driver who ran over a nest full of some rare species. Never mind the limitations on liability, he should never be operating heavy equipment again.
eck 13y ago
The Swartz/MIT debacle reminds me of a chapter in Starship Troopers. A mobile infantry recruit punches his drill instructor. The recruit is publicly lashed and discharged. Later in private, the commander reprimands the drill instructor: there were standing orders to never let a recruit hit you. They obviously have to punish recruits who strike instructors, but they do not want to. The drill instructors are supposed to be elite soldiers, and this one let a recruit get the drop on him, and that mistake cost the infantry a recruit. MIT had sufficient opportunity to stop Swartz with technical countermeasures -- but they failed to do so. They allowed the situation to escalate until official punishment became unavoidable. MIT may claim that they did not want to punish Swartz; few people will argue that they did. It was not their intent but rather their incompetence that lead to his punishment.
- raldi 13y ago
  You call it incompetence; I call it dashed optimism. MIT had faith that its community would behave responsibly in an open environment without a lot of rules and barriers. Aaron abused that trust, and as a result the MIT community had to become a bit more locked-down, a bit less freewheeling than it was before. The phrase "this is why we can't have nice things" comes to mind. If you entrust your friend with a key to your apartment, and they steal your iPad and read your diary, is the problem that you were incompetent? Or that they betrayed your trust?
  - eck 13y ago
    Incompetence was perhaps too harsh. The outcome was unforeseeable. > Like when a burglar hits a small countryside town, and suddenly everyone has to start locking their doors. I think your analogy just proves my point. They caught the burglar, but he turned out to be the local kid that everyone kind of liked. He was punished as everyone agreed the law required, but nobody was happy about it. And it would have all never happened had they just locked their doors to begin with. The small countryside town with no crime and the open MIT environment were always illusions. It was inevitable that sooner or later someone would try to steal. You can either prevent it from happening or punish it after it does. [edit] But you can't choose not to prevent it then claim you didn't want to punish it.
ohashi 13y ago
All these comments seem like they want to blame someone for Aaron's outcome. How much of the blame do people put on Aaron/MIT/JSTOR/govt/other?
UVB-76 13y ago
Straight to the relevant email logs: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-sw... Lots of interesting material there. An amusing little quote: > his hobbies include changing his mac a lot, not using dhcp, fake registration info and downloading entire online journals
just_thinking 13y ago
I am sorry, and I am really not this paranoid world conspiracy theorist kind of guy, but it's very obvious that much bigger things were going on here. Aaron was not popular by A LOT OF powerful people for many reasons. He was on "a list". In times where it is a common fact that intelligence agencies have seemingly endless digital power, all you need is someone who constructs a good story. It's not about the MIT, it could have been everywhere and anyone. The reason for all this will we find in the things Aaron was (sometimes successfully) fighting against. I wish Lawrence Lessig the best of luck!
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Or some ambitious prosecutors saw him as their Big Chance to do something more visible than another credit card fraud prosecution. Terminating their careers would be an appropriate outcome for the kind of ambition that kills someone like Swartz.
snsr 13y ago
I continue to be astounded by the unprofessional, predatory manner in which MIT, JSTOR and in particular the federal prosecutors in this case handled themselves. The article also reiterates that the ridiculous CFAA charges centered on the claim that Swartz had unauthorized access to MIT and JSTOR’s networks (he was signed in as a guest). - MIT officials openly mocking Mr Swartz - "LOL" - http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html#mit323 http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-sw... - JSTOR equates downloading files with loss of physical property while simultaneously admitting this is an inaccurate comparison - http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html#jstor614 http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-sw...
- mc_hammer 13y ago
  I came here to post this as well, and to say it sounds incompetent that they required no credentials and no authorization to let someone use their systems - yet claim it was a a crime. They did not even look for the person for 2 months (according to the article). What's worse is he basically broke the terms and conditions on JSTOR's site, and the MIT networking terms, and got charged with 30+ years of felonies (!). Possibly because he was a critic of the government as noted in the article (!). Be careful what crap you agree to when you agree to a network or sites terms and conditions!
TempleOSV2 13y ago
secret service niggers be running left and right while God squashes them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gFlSGXt_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gFlSGXt_k Run nigger-nigger!

105 points by morisy 13y ago

> MIT has insisted it maintained an appropriate, even compassionate, neutrality toward a determined hacker who stole 4.8 million articles and eluded numerous efforts to stop him before the college sought help from police. The tone of this article is very defensive. "stole" vs. downloaded, both MIT and JSTOR didn't want to prosecute, yada yada.

unreal37 13y ago

MIT seems to be getting the heat from this, more than the prosecutors who went after him, and more than congress who created a flawed law. And how does JSTOR get a pass from all this?

ScottBurson 13y ago
JSTOR made it clear early on that all they wanted was the return or destruction of the downloaded articles. Schwartz complied. As I recall, JSTOR did express that they did not seek prosecution. There has been some speculation, though, that there was room for them to express this more forcefully. My take, after reading the Abelson committee report, was that it probably would have made no difference -- there was no indication that the US Attorney's office cared in the slightest whether the alleged victims wanted Schwartz to be prosecuted -- they were determined to do it anyway.
- vpeters25 13y ago
  It seems Aaron expected that, by complying with JSTOR's request to destroy the downloads, the issue would go away. I wonder whether this was a sort of handshake agreement between Swartz lawyer and JSTOR the prosecutor choose to ignore. If so, a better lawyer could have advised to use the JSTOR downloads as leverage for a better plea.
- forgottenpass 13y ago
  there was no indication that the US Attorney's office cared in the slightest whether the alleged victims wanted Schwartz to be prosecuted Nothing gives federal authorities a crime and punishment hardon like someone rocking the boat. The Middlesex DA didn't even want prison time [0]. [0] http://www.cnet.com/news/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until-feds-took-over-case-report-says/ http://www.cnet.com/news/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until-feds...
partyfraser 13y ago
They mention JSTOR 27 times in the article. Most of the MIT references also mention JSTOR. I don't think they are getting a pass.
Zigurd 13y ago
Stephen Heymann should never handle a case more critical than car theft ever again. He is like a bulldozer driver who ran over a nest full of some rare species. Never mind the limitations on liability, he should never be operating heavy equipment again.

eck 13y ago

The Swartz/MIT debacle reminds me of a chapter in Starship Troopers. A mobile infantry recruit punches his drill instructor. The recruit is publicly lashed and discharged. Later in private, the commander reprimands the drill instructor: there were standing orders to never let a recruit hit you. They obviously have to punish recruits who strike instructors, but they do not want to. The drill instructors are supposed to be elite soldiers, and this one let a recruit get the drop on him, and that mistake cost the infantry a recruit. MIT had sufficient opportunity to stop Swartz with technical countermeasures -- but they failed to do so. They allowed the situation to escalate until official punishment became unavoidable. MIT may claim that they did not want to punish Swartz; few people will argue that they did. It was not their intent but rather their incompetence that lead to his punishment.

raldi 13y ago
You call it incompetence; I call it dashed optimism. MIT had faith that its community would behave responsibly in an open environment without a lot of rules and barriers. Aaron abused that trust, and as a result the MIT community had to become a bit more locked-down, a bit less freewheeling than it was before. The phrase "this is why we can't have nice things" comes to mind. If you entrust your friend with a key to your apartment, and they steal your iPad and read your diary, is the problem that you were incompetent? Or that they betrayed your trust?
- eck 13y ago
  Incompetence was perhaps too harsh. The outcome was unforeseeable. > Like when a burglar hits a small countryside town, and suddenly everyone has to start locking their doors. I think your analogy just proves my point. They caught the burglar, but he turned out to be the local kid that everyone kind of liked. He was punished as everyone agreed the law required, but nobody was happy about it. And it would have all never happened had they just locked their doors to begin with. The small countryside town with no crime and the open MIT environment were always illusions. It was inevitable that sooner or later someone would try to steal. You can either prevent it from happening or punish it after it does. [edit] But you can't choose not to prevent it then claim you didn't want to punish it.

ohashi 13y ago

All these comments seem like they want to blame someone for Aaron's outcome. How much of the blame do people put on Aaron/MIT/JSTOR/govt/other?

UVB-76 13y ago

Straight to the relevant email logs: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-sw... Lots of interesting material there. An amusing little quote: > his hobbies include changing his mac a lot, not using dhcp, fake registration info and downloading entire online journals

just_thinking 13y ago

I am sorry, and I am really not this paranoid world conspiracy theorist kind of guy, but it's very obvious that much bigger things were going on here. Aaron was not popular by A LOT OF powerful people for many reasons. He was on "a list". In times where it is a common fact that intelligence agencies have seemingly endless digital power, all you need is someone who constructs a good story. It's not about the MIT, it could have been everywhere and anyone. The reason for all this will we find in the things Aaron was (sometimes successfully) fighting against. I wish Lawrence Lessig the best of luck!

Zigurd 13y ago
Or some ambitious prosecutors saw him as their Big Chance to do something more visible than another credit card fraud prosecution. Terminating their careers would be an appropriate outcome for the kind of ambition that kills someone like Swartz.

snsr 13y ago

I continue to be astounded by the unprofessional, predatory manner in which MIT, JSTOR and in particular the federal prosecutors in this case handled themselves. The article also reiterates that the ridiculous CFAA charges centered on the claim that Swartz had unauthorized access to MIT and JSTOR’s networks (he was signed in as a guest). - MIT officials openly mocking Mr Swartz - "LOL" - http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html#mit323 http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-sw... - JSTOR equates downloading files with loss of physical property while simultaneously admitting this is an inaccurate comparison - http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html#jstor614 http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-sw...

mc_hammer 13y ago
I came here to post this as well, and to say it sounds incompetent that they required no credentials and no authorization to let someone use their systems - yet claim it was a a crime. They did not even look for the person for 2 months (according to the article). What's worse is he basically broke the terms and conditions on JSTOR's site, and the MIT networking terms, and got charged with 30+ years of felonies (!). Possibly because he was a critic of the government as noted in the article (!). Be careful what crap you agree to when you agree to a network or sites terms and conditions!

TempleOSV2 13y ago

secret service niggers be running left and right while God squashes them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gFlSGXt_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gFlSGXt_k Run nigger-nigger!