
The inside story of MIT and Aaron Swartz - morisy
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/29/the-inside-story-mit-and-aaron-swartz/YvJZ5P6VHaPJusReuaN7SI/story.html
======
snsr
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-
sw...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-
unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html#mit323)

\- 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-
sw...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-
unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html#jstor614)

~~~
mc_hammer
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!

------
eck
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
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
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.

~~~
shiven
Except in this case, the burglar is 'Robin Hood'-like or at least operating
with the same intentions, the burgled houses are the 'Ivory tower' of the
local clergy and the 'Rent collecting' landlord's castle. And, most
importantly, the 'Valuables' that were burgled actually belong to the people
of the village in first place. Assuming digital goods could even ever be
burgled in the conventional sense.

------
UVB-76
Straight to the relevant email logs:
[http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-
sw...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-
unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html)

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_

------
pstuart
> 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.

------
just_thinking
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
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.

------
unreal37
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
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.

~~~
forgottenpass
_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...](http://www.cnet.com/news/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until-feds-took-
over-case-report-says/)

------
ohashi
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?

