
MIT President on Aaron Swartz - jefftchan
http://pastebin.com/eFa8GdGp
======
pc
While it's painful that this is happening now and not a year ago, I'm
heartened that Hal is heading the internal investigation. I can't imagine
anyone better.

He was a major supporter of Star Simpson when most of the MIT administration
hung her out to dry. He has as good a chance as anyone at understanding
Aaron's goals in liberating JSTOR's archive: he's a founding director of the
FSF, Creative Commons, and Public Knowledge. He led the creation of MIT's
OpenCourseWare and the class _Ethics and Law on the Electronic Frontier_.

He's also just a deeply good guy.

    
    
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Knowledge
      http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/

~~~
pygy_
_"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on
my shoulders."_ \-- Hal Abelson.

... coming from someone with a life long career as a teacher and thesis
advisor.

------
losvedir
I'm impressed with this response. Two quick notes:

1) President Reif is brand new in the role -- the majority of events would
have happened under Susan Hockfield, the previous president. It makes sense
that he would want a report of what happened previously since he wasn't here
yet.

2) Professor Abelson is a _very_ well respected member of the MIT community,
and the fact that he is heading up the investigation leaves me comforted. He's
helped me before in the past and is so incredibly smart and kind hearted I
can't think of a better guy for the job.

~~~
waterlesscloud
That's Abelson as in SICP, isn't it?

~~~
jacquesm
Yep.

------
danso
_I will not attempt to summarize here the complex events of the past two
years. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and
that includes all of us at MIT. I have asked Professor Hal Abelson to lead a
thorough analysis of MIT's involvement from the time that we first perceived
unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked
that this analysis describe the options MIT had and the decisions MIT made, in
order to understand and to learn from the actions MIT took. I will share the
report with the MIT community when I receive it._

That was a much more contrite and accountable message than I had expected.
When he said " _not attempt to summaraize...Now is a time for..._ " I expected
the sentence to end with " _now is the time to grieve and celebrate Aaron's
life, not cast blame_ "...

Certainly, the same message and promises won't be made by the government
handlers.

~~~
ender7
MIT has a sad history with regards to suicide. As a result, the administration
is usually much more sensitive and self-aware when it comes to suicide-related
incidents.

~~~
chimeracoder
You're not exaggerating: <http://web.mit.edu/~sdavies/www/mit-suicides/>

Not just the number of suicides, but also the contexts (Elizabeth Shin's story
is particularly chilling - that one stuck with me because I used to live with
her former roommate's brother).

~~~
jsight
It looks like that link is no longer available.

~~~
danielweber
Someone or something has taken MIT off the Internet.

This is pretty amazing. I've _always_ been able to ping them, any time, any
where, any reason.

------
kristenlee
Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his
mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ
stuff happened.

<http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dying>

Furthermore the "glorification" of his suicide is doing nothing more but
encouraging other suicidal "hackers" to go over the edge so they have their
"story" and inconsequential blog posts plastered all of Hacker News. The focus
should be on figuring out a way to get mental health services to those who
need it most. Not a witch hunt for every person who had something to do with
Aaron's prosecution for crimes he knowingly committed.

~~~
potatolicious
The witch hunt angle has been bothering me a lot, and should be ample evidence
that the people of Hacker News are no better than the reactionaries of Reddit
or even 4chan. No sooner had the man's death hit the news that people started
foaming at the mouth, writing long manifestos and diatribes, and calling for
the head of everyone and anyone related to the prosecution.

We are better than this.

Actually, evidently, no we're not. We will take a single piece of news, and
then fly off the handle, careening into supposition after rumor, and proceed
to label people whose actions (or inactions) are far from certain, with the
most heinous crimes our society knows - up to and including murder.

We will take the news of one man's death and twist that into character attacks
against people and groups we don't know, and make blanket statements galore:
whether it's about the staff of MIT, all lawyers, all prosecutors, all
investigators, all Federal employees, etc, ad nauseum.

We will write posts filled with hyperbole after hyperbole, followed by
insinuations, emotion-appealing analogies, and mindless rhetoric.

So no, we are evidently just as knee-jerky reactionary as every other stupid
online community.

But we should be better than this.

~~~
olefoo
That is a fine display of histrionics; but, the specifics of this case DO
merit removing Ms. Ortiz and her assistant Mr. Heymann from office.

Those of us who were following the case before Aaron's tragic episode knew
that a great injustice was being perpetrated, but that it could not
realistically be undone until after the damage had happened.

Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Heymann should be held accountable for their decision to use
charges far out of proportion to the damage done. And the correct way to hold
them accountable is to remove them from an office they have proven themselves
incapable of using appropriately. They do not deserve to have the full power
of the law behind their petty vendettas.

A Federal District Attorney in this country, at this time, has almost no
checks on her power to prosecute. Petitioning the Whitehouse and the congress
to remove one who has clearly overstepped the bounds of propriety is the only
recourse we have.

You should sign the petition, because it is the only way that Ms. Ortiz's
power will even be questioned officially. Like most online petitions it will
accomplish little without a sustained campaign from many directions.

~~~
rprasad
If a great injustice really was being committed, the EFF and the ACLU would
have fallen over themselves to represent Aaron pro bnono (for free). The fact
they did not suggests otherwise.

~~~
jacquesm
So, EFF and ACLU defend you if you're not guilty and if they don't defend you
you're guilty?

Do you realize that Aarons case had yet to go to trial? And that there is a
good chance the EFF would have stepped in if it had? And that even if they
didn't that would have said _nothing_ about Aarons guilt or lack thereof?

<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz>

~~~
tptacek
Swartz's trial was scheduled, approaching rapidly, and he had already
apparently spent an enormous amount of money on at least two different firms.
The trial was not something hovering nebulously in the future; Swartz's need
for assistance was immediate.

I don't believe EFF's involvement or lack thereof speaks in any way to
Swartz's guilt. I would say that this is the kind of thing you'd hope EFF
would be right in the middle of. Were they?

~~~
jacquesm
Not openly afaik, which probably translates into not at all. Maybe someone
should go and ask them if they were and if not why not.

I offered to contribute to Aarons defense a while ago but he declined. That
may have been because he knew that any help he needed was outside of my
ability to render.

Be careful, you're associating yourself with a 'known troll'.

~~~
danielweber
"Legal defense fund" is a fairly standard thing to have. And lawyers usually
are happy to extend credit to people like Aaron and wait to be repaid later.

This doesn't eliminate the fact that trials are extremely expensive, guilty or
innocent, but it slightly ameliorates it.

~~~
jacquesm
I think Lawrence Lessig knows a bit more about this, one line in his piece
stuck out for me, it reads:

"yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund
his defense".

I'm not sure what the background on that line is but it definitely makes you
curious.

~~~
Evbn
That was a cryptic statement in the Lessig post.

We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of
bail?

~~~
tptacek
If it was that simple, would Lessig have said so after the case became moot?

I'm confused about this too.

~~~
danielweber
Either of "Aaron's lawyers were required to bill upfront" or "Aaron was not
permitted to set up a legal defense fund" would be _huge_ civil rights issues.
A lot huger than the narrative of a out-of-control prosecutor out for Aaron's
head.

Lessig really really needs to explain that sentence.

------
MichaelSalib
Note that Hal Abelson, the professor being tasked with investigating, used to
run a class called Ethics and Law on the Electronic Frontier. He's also the
coauthor of SICP.

------
rdl
This goes way beyond what I expected MIT would do. I guess MIT is more
responsive to public opinion than any prosecutor's office or politician.

~~~
wilfra
Prosecutors and politicians would respond the same way if a group so critical
to their existence became enraged at their actions (think reporters or
donors). MIT wouldn't be MIT without their stature in the tech community -
precisely the people (and perhaps the only people) who care passionately about
this.

~~~
Evbn
No, the government would hire a non-independent investigator to write a
whitewashed report.

~~~
wilfra
"the government" is something else entirely from one politician or prosecutor.

------
jtchang
Very well written. Reif understands that there is nothing to be gained by
outright pointing fingers. He knows that MIT played some part and basically
admits it. What he doesn't want to do is go into details until he readily
understands what role MIT played.

~~~
asdfologist
Well objectively MIT did play a role, but whether the role was ethically right
or wrong is a separate question. So the letter by itself does not admit
anything, and we'll have to wait for the results of the investigation.

~~~
rhizome
Threatening someone's life (30+ years in prison) for civilian expropriation of
data is certainly a case of bad form, a tenet of ethics. We can argue MIT's
significance in this mechanism, but that they aided a bad process is
undeniable.

------
guan
It’s up on the MIT website too: [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/letter-on-
death-of-aaron-...](http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/letter-on-death-of-
aaron-swartz.html)

------
ChristianMarks
Contrast the MIT statement with the distancing of JSTOR:
<http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz>

They write, "The case is one that we ourselves had regretted being drawn into
from the outset..."

But in Lawrence Lessig's
[http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-
bull...](http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully) he
writes, "Early on, and to its great credit, JSTOR figured “appropriate” out:
They declined to pursue their own action against Aaron, and they asked the
government to drop its."

According to Lessig, JSTOR was hardly "drawn into" their case against Swartz:
they withdrew their own legal action against Swartz.

~~~
Evbn
JSTOR was directly involved as the target of Aaron's actions.

MIT was involved collaterally as the scene of the crime, and ceased to be
involved after JSTOR and the Feds took over.

~~~
ChristianMarks
_JSTOR was directly involved as the target of Aaron's actions._

Yes, this is understood. They could have been drawn into the case to that
extent only, without pressing any charges.

 _MIT was involved collaterally as the scene of the crime, and ceased to be
involved after JSTOR and the Feds took over._

So JSTOR had a case to withdraw. Their involvement was not limited to being
the target of Swartz's actions--they played an active role, only to withdraw
later.

But I could be mistaken and my reading of Lessig could be wrong. How did JSTOR
take over? How did it come to pass that JSTOR dropped its case? What was its
case? Could filing such a case count as "being drawn in" to a case?

~~~
btilly
Reading between the lines of what they said in their responses, both when the
initial federal case was filed, and after the suicide, JSTOR settled out of
court with Aaron, and part of that settlement is that he gave back or
destroyed the copies that he made.

With that done, JSTOR didn't care what happened next. And only the federal
prosecutor cared.

------
pvelagal
35 years in prison for getting access to articles in a library ? Human race is
yet to evolve. <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz>

------
rikacomet
Today, I have this feeling again, the same I had when I heard about Micheal
Jackson's death. He too struggled in a way from false accusations caused by
reasons we all know. What I did learn today, which I did not knew earlier, was
how while living, a man may not achieve something, but in death WHY exactly he
would achieve even more. I do not in any way, justify the loss of life here,
but instead that after what has already happened, what will we do? His ideas
can no longer be ignored by me, us & those who caused this, and they must take
a present stance, & retrospect for the good, that, what exactly were the
things that went wrong and still are in the wrong, similarly to what Mr. Reif
said. I feel, that even though I didn't knew who Aaron Swartz was until
yesterday, I will know him for the rest of my life. What I can say today is,
that yes, I have heard you, and if I can, I will try to make others hear the
same. (Rest in Peace)

PS: 26 years, is too short of a life, you deserved much more than this. For
the least, I will try on my part, to not let something similar to happen to
even a enemy.

------
belorn
The university does, what makes sense for a university to do. They do an
analysis, and produce a report.

What I hope happens afterward is that MIT take in the report and create
meaningful changes. This however is not in the nature of universities and is
where the challenge will be if MIT want to learn from this tragedy.

~~~
Evbn
What is your basis for saying MIT never changes?

~~~
belorn
I never said MIT never changes, I said changes are not in the nature of
universities, and I base it on a comment made by a professor in law history in
Columbia law school.

A university is an institution that tries to teach young people the wisdom of
the old. It has always resisted quick changes. If one need an example, one can
take a look on how long time it took to adapt electronic aids in classes
outside computer science. An other fact is that universities has previously
been a place unique with having access to high amount of books (information).
This is no longer unique for universities, but many aspects of universities
still work as if the main purpose of a university is easy access to a library.

------
michaelfeathers
Why pastebin?

~~~
wilfra
For anonymity. The person who posted it is likely an MIT
Student/Alumnus/Faculty who received the email and others might not like them
sharing it.

~~~
adoyle
It went to the 'allmit' list
(<http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/allmit>) which goes to "all current
students (including incoming freshman and graduate students, special and
cross-registered students) and all employees listed in the MIT directory or
with SAP status=active" which is upwards of 22,000 people.

~~~
wilfra
Right and evidently whomever shared this did not want the other 21,999 people
seeing that they had posted it to their blog. So they shared it anonymously.

------
dchichkov
What I do not understand, is how a wireless connection to the public MIT
network is so different from a wired one.

It feels like MIT should change their policy and specifically state, that
wired connections to their network are Ok.

------
ramigb
What did he mean by "MIT Medical is available to provide expert counseling"?

edit : and why is this on pastebin?

~~~
mvarner
MIT Medical is available to provide members of the MIT community with
psychological counseling. This is on pastebin because it is a copy of an email
that was sent to everyone at MIT.

------
jhprks
All the organizations (MIT, JSTOR, etc.), specifically the people directly
involved in bullying Aaron Swartz may have publicly announced their
condolences, but to me they all sound like sugar coated empty jars. I can
sense that when they all go home they'll be saying "Regardless of what
happened, Aaron Swartz will always be remembered as a thief, a radical, and
most of all a criminal". I bet those people are feeding large amounts of coal
into their legal department to avoid being blamed for Aaron's death.

~~~
Evbn
You are pretty comfortable slinging unfounded accusations into the inner
workings of people you have never met.

------
eriksank
They pushed Aaron Swartz to suicide because they did not fear what would
happen next. They are right. There is nothing to fear. Ultimately, respect
will always remain based on the fear for reprisals. Where is the respect?

------
LatvjuAvs
Well done Aaron Swartz, now rinse and repeat, if necessary. Some deaths
provide a lot of information to others. Lets not hang upon death as some sort
of bad turn of event >:)

------
rhizome
"Whoopsy. Also: throwing Prof. Abelson under the bus."

~~~
rdl
No -- Abelson is an uninvolved, very respected professor. It's normal to
appoint someone like that to run an investigation. There is every reason to
suspect it will be comprehensive, fair, and public.

~~~
rhizome
_It's normal to appoint someone like that to run an investigation._

This is a bit naive, no? Look at Eric Schneiderman.

e.g. [http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/yes-really-truly-
no-j...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/yes-really-truly-no-joke-that-
schneiderman-mortgage-task-force-is-gonna-get-someone-soon.html)

~~~
rdl
MIT is a lot more similar to NASA than to the banking sector or the federal
government.

~~~
rhizome
I'm speaking to the assumption that promoting an agreeable person will
necessarily have a favorable outcome. There's a huge presumption that
Abelson's role in this precludes unfairness.

~~~
jacquesm
Please, let's give Abelson the time to do his work. If he botches it you can
call him out fairly afterwards, and I'm pretty sure you won't be alone. To do
this beforehand is not fair to the man.

~~~
Evbn
You are replying to a known troll.

~~~
jacquesm
Having just been called a 'known troll' myself (see this gem:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052367>) I think this label has been
thrown around way too lightly of late.

Rhizome has been around for a while and I don't think he's a troll, merely too
upset to see things clearly right now.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rhizome>

He's been here almost four times as long as you have and I remember lots of
good stuff from him.

~~~
rdl
MIT employee friends of mine have said to me exactly what rhizome is saying --
that the report won't be complete and comprehensive.

I'm withholding judgment, but if the report is whitewashed, it's war. But I'll
wait until I have actual evidence.

~~~
jacquesm
> but if the report is whitewashed, it's war

I agree, now let's wait and see.

