

MIT Legal repudiated Xbox hacker too - irq
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2860

======
joezydeco
Sorry to be a little cynical here, but I have a couple of questions.

1) Was bunnie's hack of the Xbox keys a MIT-endorsed project? Was it part of
his degree work or something he did on his own time?

2) If the work was independent, what's MIT's obligation to shield bunnie in a
legal sense? If it wasn't, did MIT step in and say "hey, this might piss off
Microsoft if you do this" or was the work just put out there with unknown some
degree of oversight?

3) bunnie was an MIT student, Arron was not. The statement "MIT gave up on me
too" kind of implies the situations were similar. Were they?

Don't misunderstand me, I have _immense_ respect for bunnie and hackers of his
breed, but these things are just bugging me.

~~~
jmix
I see your legalistic approach to MIT's responsibilities, but this fascination
with "endorsement" is missing the point. Universities are not government labs,
where you'd expect every participant to clear every activity with their
superiors. Research doesn't work that way. And if universities do not stick up
for exploration, who will?

Was MIT obligated to defend this fellow? No. Should it have defended him? Most
definitely.

~~~
joezydeco
In my view, endorsement is key. Let's pretend we're listening in on that first
phone call from Microsoft to MIT:

MS: "Hey, um, so we've learned that one of your students just published a way
to jeopardize our entire project, one that we've spent multiple millions of
dollars developing. He seems to have done it in your labs with your tools.
What's your take?"

So MIT's response can go one of two ways:

1) "Yeah, how about that? Cool, huh? We didn't know about it but we fully back
him and let's see what the internet does with this."

2) "Um, we had no idea he was doing this and didn't ask him to publish. He did
this alone."

Do you see where each direction leads?

~~~
jmix
Consider the case where the grad student, acting alone and not as part of an
officially sanctioned project, invented something awesome using some resources
from MIT like an internet connection and lab space. How eager do you think MIT
would be to say "well, we didn't endorse anything you did, so you own the
entire IP rights to everything; we want no piece of your new startup" ? Or the
student discovers a flaw that gets a lot of press attention; how eager is MIT
to feature the work saying they supported it, as opposed to saying "it was all
unendorsed." Hint: both of these have happened many times, you can look up the
relevant MIT policies, and you can ask people about how it went. MIT benefits
immensely from "unendorsed" (i.e. implicitly endorsed after the fact)
activities conducted on its campus.

Do you now see why it's ethically questionable for MIT to try to wash its
hands off when the same researcher's exploration incurs some legal costs?

~~~
aheilbut
Actually, MIT (and similar institutions) do not assert ownership of IP based
on use of basic resources like office space and an internet connection.

See: <http://web.mit.edu/tlo/www/community/guide2.html#2.1>

M.I.T. OWNED (a) Patents, copyrights on software, maskworks, and tangible
research property and trademarks developed by faculty, students, staff and
others, including visitors participating in M.I.T. programs or using M.I.T.
funds or facilities, are owned by M.I.T. when either of the following applies:
(1) The intellectual property was developed in the course of or pursuant to a
sponsored research agreement with M.I.T.; or (2) The intellectual property was
developed with significant use of funds or facilities administered by M.I.T.,
as defined in Section 2.1.2. (b) All copyrights, including copyrighted
software, will be owned by M.I.T. when it is created as a "work for hire" as
defined by copyright law, (see Section 2.1.3) or created pursuant to a written
agreement with M.I.T. providing for transfer of copyright or ownership to
M.I.T.

INVENTOR/AUTHOR OWNED Inventors/Authors will own patents/copyrights/materials
when none of the situations defined above for M.I.T.-Ownership of intellectual
property applies.

[...]

    
    
               M.I.T. does not construe the use of office, library, machine shop or Project Athena personal desktop work stations and communication and storage servers as constituting significant use of M.I.T. space or facilities, nor construe the payment of salary from unrestricted accounts as constituting significant use of M.I.T. funds, except in those situations where the funds were paid specifically to support the development of certain materials.

------
dshep
Favorite quote: "It saddens me that America’s so-called government for the
people, by the people, and of the people has less compassion and enlightenment
toward their fellow man than a corporation."

~~~
afarrell
I found that quote interesting too, as it was telling that the author felt it
expressed something noteworthy. I don't see why it should be at all
surprising. Corporations are made of living, breathing people. They each have
their own organizational culture and set of external pressures that guides
their decisions and behavior. The same is true of governments, and government
agencies, and offices within government agencies, and cliques of people within
offices of government agencies, and ... you get my point.

You get an even greater sense of this when you talk to people who have ever
created a corporation or tried to make it more powerful. Gee, I wonder if
there are any such people who hang around here...

------
dshep
"I started rebuilding my life overseas, and I find a quantum of solace in the
thought that my residence abroad makes it a little more difficult to be
served."

Does this mean things are better outside the US these days?

~~~
rst
It depends where outside the US, one imagines --- but there are certainly
places that are generally worse. Law enforcement agencies in, say, China, are
not known for their respect for the rights of the accused or their scrupulous
attitude towards due process.

~~~
Kliment
Bunnie is based in Singapore.

EDIT: Corrected. I thought he was in Schenzhen but I was confusing him with
Zach Smith.

~~~
new299
no, he lives in Singapore.

see e.g.: [http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/30/makes-exclusive-
intervie...](http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/30/makes-exclusive-interview-
with-andrew-bunnie-huang-the-end-of-chumby-new-adventures/)

------
michaelfeathers
In the US, prosecution has become a punishment that overwhelms any eventual
sentence.

------
kragen
Bunnie here says he feels safer from government abuses in Singapore, which has
no trial by jury, a single-party government, and the highest execution rate in
the world, where all public gatherings of five or more people require a police
permit, than in the US.

Does that mean the US has failed?

------
drawkbox
Cruel and unusual punishment via prosecution. Prison threats for non-violent
crimes. I agree, things have gotten carried far away.

~~~
tzs
What's wrong with prison for non-violent crime? For instance, if someone
steals my car from a parking lot, I'm OK with them getting prison time, even
if they didn't use violence to get my car.

~~~
mbell
Putting someone in jail is just as likely to turn them in a violent repeat
offender as it is to 'cure' them.

~~~
jmodp
Not all prisons are the same. Martha Stewart seems to have survived her felony
conviction and her jail time.

~~~
burke
It's different for white collar crime. People stealing cars likely don't have
much going on in their lives, and joining a gang might look to them like a
viable way forward.

Martha Stewart was jailed for insider trading. Before, during, and after, she
has a much more comfortable option for her life than to join a gang.

------
rdl
Are there other universities known for being better at this than MIT?

~~~
davorak
The impression many people have is that MIT has or is getting worse on these
types of issues hence why it is a big deal to them.

