5 ms·

Those curious about MIT's role should 1) Read Prof Hal Abelson's report http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ 2) Remember that a prosecut

Those curious about MIT's role should 1) Read Prof Hal Abelson's report http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ 2) Remember that a prosecutor does not serve the person who reported a crime or prompted an investigation. A prosecutor serves The State http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1423 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1423

yarrel 12y ago
MIT's neutrality really comes through as a badge of shame there.
Zigurd 12y ago
That report is a shameful whitewash
- afarrell 12y ago
  Do you have sources to contradict it?
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    Contradict what? The report amounts to "It wasn't our fault because, except for the people we won't name, and won't say what they told law enforcement, nobody here told Aaron to kill himself." That doesn't need to be contradicted to call it weak sauce and whitewash.
- tptacek 12y ago
  You're accusing Hal Abelson of deliberately deceiving the public? Or is there a better way to interpret what you wrote?
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    If you look at my response below, the report does not have to be an outright lie to be a whitewash. It can deceive by omission, for example. The headline of CNN's coverage of the report was "We did not target Aaron." That's true-ish. There's a lot of room between there and the truth, which is more like "We failed to stand up to stop a bad investigation and prosecution, and now we're dodging responsibility." Would you place all the responsibility for the report on Abelson? Or do you think Rafael Reif is responsible for setting the parameters of the report to be produced?
    - tptacek 12y ago
      That's why I used the word "deceive", as you did right here as well, and so I guess my response is to repeat the question I asked above. Do you really believe Hal Abelson was deliberately or negligently --- ie, culpably --- deceptive? later: added clarifying word "really"
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        "Deceptive" is your word. I said "whitewash." A whitewash is dissembling and deflecting and, ultimately, deceptive. Abelson, and the other authors of the report should have refused to write it. But Reif is mostly to blame. He asked for the report, and used it to deflect blame. Now here is where YOU are being deceptive. You are digging for "Hal Abelson is culpably deceptive." You would even prefer something stronger. That's a weak rhetorical ploy. Write it yourself if you want to read it.
        tptacek 12y ago
        "Deceptive is your word. I said 'whitewash'. A whitewash is [...] ultimately deceptive." I don't feel like I'm so much trying to use debate tactics against you as to observe how uncomfortable even you seem to be with the idea that Hal Abelson was deliberately deceptive.
        Zigurd 12y ago
        So you are completely comfortable defending the Abelson report, and find it completely honest. That's dandy. Are you still comfortable with your comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484
        tptacek 12y ago
        Yes. And, yes. Why? What does that have to do with Abelson's report?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

yarrel 12y ago

MIT's neutrality really comes through as a badge of shame there.

Zigurd 12y ago

That report is a shameful whitewash

afarrell 12y ago
Do you have sources to contradict it?
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Contradict what? The report amounts to "It wasn't our fault because, except for the people we won't name, and won't say what they told law enforcement, nobody here told Aaron to kill himself." That doesn't need to be contradicted to call it weak sauce and whitewash.
tptacek 12y ago
You're accusing Hal Abelson of deliberately deceiving the public? Or is there a better way to interpret what you wrote?
- Zigurd 12y ago
  If you look at my response below, the report does not have to be an outright lie to be a whitewash. It can deceive by omission, for example. The headline of CNN's coverage of the report was "We did not target Aaron." That's true-ish. There's a lot of room between there and the truth, which is more like "We failed to stand up to stop a bad investigation and prosecution, and now we're dodging responsibility." Would you place all the responsibility for the report on Abelson? Or do you think Rafael Reif is responsible for setting the parameters of the report to be produced?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    That's why I used the word "deceive", as you did right here as well, and so I guess my response is to repeat the question I asked above. Do you really believe Hal Abelson was deliberately or negligently --- ie, culpably --- deceptive? later: added clarifying word "really"
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      "Deceptive" is your word. I said "whitewash." A whitewash is dissembling and deflecting and, ultimately, deceptive. Abelson, and the other authors of the report should have refused to write it. But Reif is mostly to blame. He asked for the report, and used it to deflect blame. Now here is where YOU are being deceptive. You are digging for "Hal Abelson is culpably deceptive." You would even prefer something stronger. That's a weak rhetorical ploy. Write it yourself if you want to read it.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        "Deceptive is your word. I said 'whitewash'. A whitewash is [...] ultimately deceptive." I don't feel like I'm so much trying to use debate tactics against you as to observe how uncomfortable even you seem to be with the idea that Hal Abelson was deliberately deceptive.
        Zigurd 12y ago
        So you are completely comfortable defending the Abelson report, and find it completely honest. That's dandy. Are you still comfortable with your comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484
        tptacek 12y ago
        Yes. And, yes. Why? What does that have to do with Abelson's report?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]