

MIT and Aaron Swartz - guan
http://crookedtimber.org/2013/01/13/mit-and-aaron-swartz/

======
nugget
I spent many years at MIT and continue to support the Institute today,
financially and with my time. What makes MIT special - for me - is the way
that the administration (at least while I was there) embraces the hacker
culture and understands that the type of brilliant, creative young people they
recruit will break a lot of rules to test the system before they find their
place in it. They continually shielded us from the outside world and
maintained a bubble in which we could experiment and push the boundaries. If
it went too far, you were suspended for awhile, but I can't remember anyone
referred to criminal prosecution.

If that type of community spirit is lost, it's a loss for everyone because
somewhere special like that deserves to exist.

~~~
rm999
It's worth pointing out that he wasn't a student or employee of MIT. Yes, he
was a member of the hacker elite, but I would imagine any institution would be
less likely to protect someone it can't internally discipline.

------
sadfaceunread
As a member of the MIT community, I honestly do not feel very bad about how
MIT (Administration) handled this situation. MIT's tradition of careful and
thoughtful rule breaking clearly recognizes that rules will be enforced and
that the police may be involved in criminal matters.

MIT does not and should not decide prosecution strategy. This was not a civil
case, but a criminal prosecution in the American tradition of criminal
justice. The victim is not the one prosecuting the crime but rather the
government prosecutes on behalf of all people, not on behalf of the victim
exclusively.

~~~
waterlesscloud
MIT involved the feds in the first place. That was a decision made by
authorities on campus, one which was not inevitable. So yes, they do decide
prosecution strategy, by deciding when there should be prosecution at all.

~~~
rdl
Yes, involving the USSS was the first seriously questionable decision MIT
made. I hope Prof Abelson's report includes who made that decision, when, on
what evidence, and why.

I'd be fine with invoking the USSS if there were serious crime going on --
someone using MIT to host cp, or compromising research integrity, or planning
violence or financial crime, etc.

If it's someone using your network resources in excess of terms of service, to
download another freely available resource in excess of service.

I'd give a technically lesser party (say, a small business, or an individual,
or a local government office) a pass if they called the USSS in on something,
since they might not be competent to figure out what is going on. However, MIT
is clearly in a position to know exactly what was happening.

I'd be inclined to wait for Abelson's report, but from what I've seen so far,
MIT Libraries, MIT IS&T, MIT Police, and the MIT Office of General Counsel are
all to blame to some extent.

The lion's share of the blame falls on USA Carmen M. Ortiz, AUSA Stephen P.
Heymann, and AUSA Scott L. Garland, however, and on Congress for passing
unreasonable computer crime and copyright laws with such absurdly excessive
criminal penalties.

~~~
tzs
> Yes, involving the USSS was the first seriously questionable decision MIT
> made.

The unknown intruder evaded several attempts to cut him off. The volume of
downloads was so high that it was causing problems for JSTOR's servers, and
JSTOR finally blocked ALL of MIT for several days.

MIT was suffering serious harm. Calling in the Feds for help doesn't seem all
that questionable to me under the circumstances.

~~~
rdl
Blocked all of MIT? I thought they just blocked the single /24 he was using.
MIT has a /8.

~~~
tzs
According to the information in the indictment[1], they first blocked a single
IP, then a bigger block, and then finally all of MIT.

[1]
[http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pd...](http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pdf)

~~~
rdl
Ah, thanks (I didn't read it that closely). Having your entire netblock
blocked from an important service definitely is more justification to bring in
the SS, since it's actual ongoing harm to you.

------
benatkin
It matters how you say things. I disagree with the statement that this is
"quite clearly" saying that the penalties are too much:

> But the penalties in this case, and the sources of those penalties, are
> really remarkable. These penalties really go against MIT’s culture of
> breaking down barriers.

Using the phrase "really remarkable" sidesteps saying that they're wrong. It's
classic weaseling.

