
MIT Report is a whitewash. My Statement in Response - woodhull
http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/56881327662/mit-report-is-a-whitewash-my-statement-in-response
======
freyr
_" Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. MIT had a moral
imperative to do so."_

It's natural to look for someone to blame. Should we lay the blame on MIT? If
they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he
might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? Or JSTOR? In any case, aiding in
prosecution did not cause his death directly.

The decision to commit suicide was ultimately his own. Of all the options he
had available to him, he consciously chose that option. I'm reminded of a
quote by Viktor Frankl:

 _" Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one
thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation."_

Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some people
survive terrible hardships, and others don't?

According to his close friends' personal accounts, Aaron suffered from
suicidal thoughts and depression for many years. Long before the JSTOR case,
and long before MIT ever got involved. As long as we're speculating about
things we can't know for sure, I'm guessing depression was really to blame for
his suicide. That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a
powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that
way.

~~~
coldtea
> _Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some
> people survive terrible hardships, and others don 't?_

That's bad reasoning.

That "some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't" can just as
well prove the reverse: that NOT all people have the same "power to choose".

Especially a self-professed depressive like Aaron.

Some people are more thick-skinned, either due to temperament, upbringing,
genetics, circumstances etc.

> _I 'm guessing suicidal depression was really to blame for his suicide._

And this "suicidal depression" was unknown to MIT/his prosecutors? Or they
found it nice to taunt and threaten someone suffering with such, over a non-
issue?

> _That won 't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful
> organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way._

I'm finding pop psychology explanations like your serve another plausible
rationalization mechanism: it makes those saying them feel superior and more
logical compared to the naives that " _seek a powerful organization to rage
against_ ". (If you allow me the same pop psychology)

In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't
solve anything (even if it was true).

Blaming MIT and the prosecution will prevent people from being fucked for
trying similar benfifical hacks in the future.

~~~
freyr
_> In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't
solve anything (even if it was true)._

 _> Blaming MIT and the prosecution will prevent people from being fucked for
trying similar benfifical hacks in the future._

So MIT and the prosecution unfairly targeted Aaron to serve their personal
motives. And now you're suggesting we unfairly pin his death on them to serve
your personal motives.

I'm done with this.

~~~
markdown
Set aside the suicide and imagine that Aaron were still alive today, and
you'll find that everything we're saying against MIT still stands. They acted
terribly.

The thing is, a guy's dead, and the best thing we can do is use his death to
make the world a better place.

~~~
mpyne
Sometimes I wonder if we've forgotten who broke into who's subnet here. :P

Certainly the prosecution should have been in felony mode, but there wasn't
_no_ reason to avoid prosecution, except to pander to a highly vocal group.

------
pkfrank
>Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did.

This may in fact be true, but this claim is leveled with the implication that
MIT is responsible for his death. They surely could have responded better;
taking a "non-neutral" position (actively supporting lessened punishment), but
this claim seems overreaching and narrow.

~~~
scarmig
For context, Taren was Aaron's partner at the time of his death and was the
person who found him hanging.

~~~
pkfrank
Thanks. I appreciate that context, and I apologize if my original comment was
insensitive.

It must be terribly painful to have strangers commenting on the loss of a
loved one, especially in such a politically charged and public arena.

~~~
larrys
"I apologize if my original comment was insensitive."

It's sad that there is a need to apologize such as you did.

This is one of these issues in which ordinary discourse is not possible. You
would have to spend so much time padding your thoughts about what you might
think to lessen the impact on those that are highly sensitive for one reason
or another.

~~~
schrijver
Well I’m sorry but that’s a pretty basic part of the human experience. While
there are some situation in which one can be blunt and straightforward, other
situations require all the tact and empathy you can muster… Imagine turning
someone down for a job interview. If the person cared for this job, every
single word you say will be taken very personal and be mulled over afterwords.
That means it is up to you to pick your words very carefully, and find a
constructive phrasing.

~~~
larrys
"Imagine turning someone down for a job interview. If the person cared for
this job"

I know but this wasn't in response to someone who claimed they were directly
connected to this case though.

------
GrinningFool
This is probably going to cost me karma, but here goes: "Aaron would be alive
today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did"

So he has _no_ responsibility for the decisions he made, up to and including
the final one?

Yes, MIT's actions may have had influence. Or they may have hastened the
inevitable - a person who makes this choice is not untroubled to begin with,
and it's never about just one thing.

Ultimately, it was his choice in the end. The responsibility is his.

~~~
jlgreco
Consider the attitudes we have towards schoolyard or internet bullies when
their victims commit suicide. If the people weev harassed had committed
suicide, what would you hesitate to blame weev?

~~~
mithaler
In the hypothetical you raise, Weev is at best an unprovoked aggressor, and at
worst a bully who harasses people because he can. In contrast, MIT can
reasonably claim that Swartz was the aggressor against them; he was the one
who sneaked into a network closet to "liberate" JSTOR.

~~~
jlgreco
We can debate whether or not MIT is a bully, though I have no interest in
doing so. It seems painfully clear to me.

What I think is not debatable, unless you think humans are emotionless
automatons who cannot be influenced by the treatment of others (a viewpoint
seemingly being espoused by several here), is that bullies can be held
partially _morally_ ^ accountable for the suicides of their victims.

^ I am not saying _legally_ accountable.

~~~
mithaler
I do not believe MIT was a bully. A bully is someone who harms others because
they can; MIT was responding, I believe reasonably, to a person breaking into
their network closet and violating their terms of access. That that person
happened to be at risk of suicide was tragic, but not their fault; I can't
even think of a way the legal system would be able to reasonably take that
into account, nor can I imagine how a system of morality can indemnify a
person's actions because they happen to be suicidal.

You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of negative
repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree.

~~~
jlgreco
I'll give you that MIT was less the bully... and more the parent standing idly
by enjoying the show. As far as I am concerned, that is an equivalent
position.

> _You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of
> negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree._

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing in the
slightest. If you think that is what this discussion is about, then I have to
wonder what exactly you have been reading.

~~~
mithaler
Whether Aaron's actions were morally wrong is irrelevant to a discussion of
the morality of MIT's response to them?

~~~
jlgreco
Yes? Particularly if I am not making the claim that Aaron's actions were not
morally wrong? It is just plain off topic.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6128690](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6128690)

~~~
mithaler
How does one make the claim that a response to an action was disproportionate,
without implicitly claiming that the action that precipitated it was a lesser
evil?

Either way, I don't think either of us is ever going to convince the other of
anything on that score, so it's probably best to agree to disagree on it.

------
ddod
It seems like objecting to the FOIA is all the report we need on how
wrong/right their actions were. If they think that whatever in there is
damaging to them or likely to cause people enough anger to create a dangerous
climate for those involved, it doesn't really matter what MIT's internal
report characterizes things as.

~~~
cinquemb
It's interesting that a hour in, you are the only one to have mentioned how
MIT objected to the FOIA request and the governments compliance.

What we have and have had for some time is a democracy (or republic depending
on which brand of kool aid one drinks) behind closed doors, by a government
that is publicly funded submitting to the will of private institutions. Not
that what is going on here is better than anyone else…

------
denzil_correa
Is this true?

    
    
        This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave 
        prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing 
        access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. 
        That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say 
        publicly, “We don’t want this prosecution to go forward” – and 
        Steve Heymann and Carmen Ortiz would have had no case.
    

Was there a possibility where MIT could say that they did not want any
prosecution?

~~~
gonzo
Of course there was. JSOR did, and once they had, the entire case hung on
MIT's claims of "hacking".

~~~
mpyne
JSTOR dropping their support for the prosecution didn't remove the evidence
pertaining to their side of the story from the case. What Aaron did to JSTOR
was as relevant for the prosecution after JSTOR asked them to stop as it was
before, it's not as if the prosecution was then limited to only evidence
obtained from the MIT side.

------
suprgeek
MIT "Negotiators" were the ones primarily holding out against the "No Jail"
plea-bargain [1] which would have otherwise succeeded in getting Aaron the
commensurate penalty for his actions.

Instead, because of their pigheadedness, the govt. got a chance to threaten
him him with a very large Jail sentence leading to the completely avoidable
tragedy that happened.

Whitewash indeed...his death is certainly attributable to MIT & Carmen Ortiz,
et al.

[1]
[http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_ref...](http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_refused_pl.php)

~~~
danielweber
For what it's worth, MIT says it told the prosecutors otherwise:

 _MIT’s counsel stated that, while the government might believe that jail time
was appropriate in this case, the government should not be under the
impression that MIT wanted a jail sentence for Aaron Swartz. The prosecutor
responded that the government believed that some custody was appropriate. He
said the government had to consider not only the views of the immediate
victims, but also general deterrence of others._

~~~
betterunix
That falls short of telling the government that they should not seek jail
time. It is simply informing them that MIT itself was not asking for jail
time, not that MIT felt jail time was going too far. At what point did MIT
protest the prosecutor's actions in any way whatsoever? MIT was complicit,
handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to
do so (compare with JSTOR).

~~~
danielweber
_MIT was complicit, handing over to the government whatever they asked for
without being forced to do so_

I'm not sure we are going to have productive discussion if you say this.

Either you read the report and think "handing over to the government whatever
they asked for without being forced to do so" is an accurate assessment, when
MIT explicitly denies turning over anything outside of what was required by
subpoenas _except_ for the first few days around the arrest, when they didn't
realize that the guy breaking into their network was an internet hero and
allowed to do that.

Or you didn't read the report.

For others watching the conversation, I'll point out other things from that
very page:

 _• The prosecutor said that, pre-indictment, he had wanted to approach the
case on a human level, not punitively. To this extent he made an extremely
reasonable proposal, and was “dumb-founded” by Swartz’s response._

 _• The prosecutor said that the straw that broke the camel’s back was that
when he indicted the case, and allowed Swartz to come to the courthouse as
opposed to being arrested, Swartz used the time to post a “wild Internet
campaign” in an effort to drum up support. This was a “foolish” move that
moved the case “from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level.” The
lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to
manage both internally and externally._

 _[...] The lead prosecutor’s comment about a “wild Internet campaign”
orchestrated by Swartz to drum up support made MIT concerned that any public
statements that MIT might make on Swartz’s behalf could backfire._

~~~
betterunix
I think you might not have read the report. MIT did not demand subpoenas even
after they discovered Aaron's identity; they were eventually served a subpoena
but that does not appear to have been required for their cooperation. Aaron
was arrested on January 6th; from the report:

"On January 24, 2011, the Secret Service Agent asked IS&T for a copy of the
packet data capture and the video surveillance file. IS&T duplicated the hard
drive it had used to capture the packet stream (see section I.B), and the
special agent picked up the copy at MIT on January 26."

"There were few communications between the prosecution and MIT after the
indictment, except for occasional emails from the government seeking bits and
pieces of information relevant to the government’s case."

(This second bit was done supposedly under the belief that the information was
covered by two previous subpoenas. Nobody seems to have been bothered enough
to check.)

"For example, when the government’s investigation had begun, in January 2011,
OGC made the decision that the lead prosecutor, the Secret Service Agent, and
the Cambridge Police detective could directly telephone and email previously
interviewed IS&T employees without first going through an MIT attorney for
follow-up questions, provided no new topics were covered"

"However, MIT did not, reciprocally, voluntarily provide to the defense the
same documents that it provided to the government. Similarly, MIT did not
produce to the defense, even though requested by subpoena, documents that the
defense sought from MIT but that MIT had already provided to the government."

"Initially, OGC approved the production of information to law enforcement,
without a subpoena, as part of a continuing investigation of an ongoing
intrusion into MIT’s network as well as of a possible crime being committed on
the MIT campus. IS&T continued to provide information to the investigators,
pursuant to this initial approval, until OGC was eventually served with a
subpoena on January 27, 2011."

In other words, we can summarize MIT's conduct as follows: they gave the
government whatever the government wanted, and eventually the government
served a subpoena that changed almost nothing (at one point, MIT did ask for
another subpoena to be served; this is a minor detail, as they were clearly
far more cooperative with the prosecution than they were ever required to be).

------
danso
> _Here are the facts: This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s
> lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while
> refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence.
> That’s not neutral._

Those aren't really facts, those are assertions that could use some
documentation. Which specific witnesses and pieces of evidence did the defense
request (and is there a record of this) but were denied to them (and is there
a record of that)?

~~~
speeder
My guess this is the thing people are trying to release, and MIT is blocking.

------
thezilch
MIT's a bully, and they should educate themselves on the lengths taken by
their state's legislature to help prevent suicide [0]. Aaron might have played
a part in his own actions, but if MIT is OK with Aaron being classified a
cyber criminal, I'm OK with setting them on the express path to blame.

[0]
[http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/04/grieving_family_by_his_side_governor_signs_legislation/)

------
willholloway
A sane nation would have recognized Aaron as an incredibly valuable asset to
the entire society. The American criminal justice system saw him as a
dangerous threat and offered only cruel and unusual punishment. The facts
point to just one conclusion: we live under an irrational and pathological
criminal justice system.

------
ferdo
The historical info contained in JSTOR should be free, just as Aaron
envisioned. MIT long ago lost its shine as a conduit for information and has
now become just another McBiz.

Long live Aaron's spirit and his zeal.

------
falk
If you don't agree with how MIT handled this situation, protest the MIT
hackathon in October and any other MIT related events.

~~~
wetmore
I believe the hackathon is student-run so you're not doing much by protesting
it besides hurting the efforts of some unrelated students.

------
delinka
"...That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say
publicly..."

Well, the author's proposal for action by MIT is also not "neutral." Though I
hold the same opinion about how MIT should have acted, I feel it's
[inadvertently] written with this juxtaposition that goes from a level-headed
"that's not neutral and here's why" to an emotional "they should have done X
instead" which I fear reduces the effect of this statement.

However, there's been boatloads of public outcry over this whole thing and I'm
certain I feel that MIT should address each and every issue people continue to
raise, regardless of the how emotionally charged such statements might be.

------
SCAQTony
MIT obviously is conducting it's affairs like a business. Therefore, asking
MIT to do the "soul searching" they promised is like asking Dow Chemical* to
do so some "soul searching" searching after the the Bhopal chemical spill.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)

 _Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide

_

------
Zigurd
What, will these hands ne'er be clean? No more o’ that, my lord, no more o’
that. You mar all with this

~~~
kaonashi
You're comparing the author to Lady MacBeth?

~~~
Zigurd
[EDIT:] The Abelson report is a huge effort at hand-washing. [Clearer?]

 _Here 's the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not
sweeten this little hand._

~~~
kaonashi
e: Much.

------
crb002
Ouch. Glad Taren is holding their feet to the fire.

------
Pro_bity
This has to be difficult to stomach. I am very sorry for your loss.

------
whitehat2k9
>his report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors
total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s
lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence.

I'm sorry, but where exactly did this report, or any other literature on the
case, indicate that MIT refused access to the defense's lawyers?

~~~
Maxious
Page 76: "MIT did not, reciprocally, voluntarily provide to the defense the
same documents that it provided to the government. Similarly, MIT did not
produce to the defense, even though requested by subpoena, documents that the
defense sought from MIT but that MIT had already provided to the government."

~~~
whitehat2k9
Well yes, but they mention that the reason for this was because the defense
could reasonably expect to obtain these documents from the prosecution, and
that they didn't want to duplicate their efforts by re-compiling all the
evidence.

------
vehementi
Kinda sucks that almost every post here is getting distracted by the "he would
be alive today" bit.

------
comrh
Some serious misunderstanding of mental illness in this thread and on HN in
general that seems to raise its ugly head with news about Aaron.

