

MIT supports release of Swartz case documents, if redacted for employee privacy - lwf
http://ia600504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137971/gov.uscourts.mad.137971.114.0.pdf
tl;dr: MIT is choosing to ask the court to relax a protection order releasing MIT documents related to the Swartz case on the condition that the documents be redacted to protect the privacy of MIT's employees.
======
lwf
In summary: MIT is choosing to ask the court to relax a protection order
releasing MIT documents related to the Swartz case on the condition that the
documents be redacted to protect the privacy of MIT's employees.

~~~
smoyer
Yep ... you beat me to it, but I hope someone fixes up the misleading title.

------
sadfaceunread
This is not a particularly accurate title. MIT could release the records at
any point (they are MITs to do with whatever they please), and in fact already
committed to do so once redaction had occurred.

MIT actually expressly opposes in this document the Keker & Van Nest LLP
proposed modification of the protective order, without redaction. And in fact
brings up a serious procedural misconduct of Keker & Van Nest LLP (they should
have already destroyed any copies they possessed already because the criminal
case was fully concluded).

------
rdl
I'd rather they be forced to release the documents intact, vs. waiting even
longer to release them themselves with redactions. Although I suspect the
Internet/wikileaks/etc. will repair any redactions in released files.

------
koenigdavidmj
The kerning of the scribd view is really weird in Chrome. And almost as bad in
IE.

~~~
SilasX
There's _another_ way that scribd sucks? You don't say!

