A report on the institute's role in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, the freedom-of-information activist who committed suicide while facing federal charges over a hack at MIT, laments the school's hands-off approach. July 30, 2013 11:59 AM PDT Aaron Swartz (Credit: Jacob Appelbaum) The Massachusetts Institute of Technology released on Tuesday a report on its role in the prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz, concluding that it maintained a neutral stance and did no wrong but suggesting that MIT's approach was not the right one for any institution that hoped to be "a tough leader or a moral leader." The nearly 200-page report was a response to outrage over MIT's role in the prosecution of Swartz, the freedom-of-information activist who committed suicide while facing federal felony charges for downloading more than 4 million academic journal papers from the JSTOR database at the institute. In a letter announcing the report to the MIT community, MIT President L. Rafael Reif said the inquiry had debunked some popular misconceptions about the institute's actions during Swartz's prosecution. "The report...sets the record straight by dispelling widely circulated myths," Reif wrote. "For example, it makes clear that MIT did not 'target' Aaron Swartz, we did not seek federal prosecution, punishment, or jail time, and we did not oppose a plea bargain." The report says MIT "adopted a position of remaining neutral, with limited involvement" and that its decision -- despite requests from Swartz's family and from two MIT faculty members -- not to issue a statement during the case or advocate publicly on Swartz's behalf was the result of talks with an attorney that suggested such actions wouldn't help -- and might even cause harm to -- Swartz's legal efforts. However, the report says, MIT failed to consider Swartz's reputation in the realm of digital technology and open access or that "the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [the law under which Swartz was charged] is a poorly drafted and questionable criminal law as applied to modern computing, one that affects the Internet community as a whole and is widely criticized; and that the United States government was pursuing an overtly aggressive prosecution." The report concludes by seriously questioning the institute's hands-off approach. "If the Review Panel is forced to highlight just one issue for reflection," the report reads, "we would choose to look to the MIT administration's maintenance of a 'neutral' hands-off attitude that regarded the prosecution as a legal dispute to which it was not a party." And it continues: As a case study, this is a textbook example of the very controversies where the world seeks MIT's insight and leadership...A friend of Aaron Swartz stressed in one of our interviews that MIT will continue to be at the cutting edge in information technology and, in today's world, challenges like those presented in Aaron Swartz's case will arise again and again. With that realization, "Neutrality on these cases is an incoherent stance. It's not the right choice for a tough leader or a moral leader." A PDF of the full report is available here. Reif's letter announcing it (PDF) is here. And newly released documents pertaining to the case (PDF) are here. You can also check out MIT's own news story and an FAQ here and here, respectively.
A report on the institute's role in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, the freedom-of-information activist who committed suicide while facing federal charges over a hack at MIT, laments the school's hands-off approach.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology released on Tuesday a report on its role in the prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz, concluding that it maintained a neutral stance and did no wrong but suggesting that MIT's approach was not the right one for any institution that hoped to be "a tough leader or a moral leader."
The nearly 200-page report was a response to outrage over MIT's role in the prosecution of Swartz, the freedom-of-information activist who committed suicide while facing federal felony charges for downloading more than 4 million academic journal papers from the JSTOR database at the institute.
In a letter announcing the report to the MIT community, MIT President L. Rafael Reif said the inquiry had debunked some popular misconceptions about the institute's actions during Swartz's prosecution.
"The report...sets the record straight by dispelling widely circulated myths," Reif wrote. "For example, it makes clear that MIT did not 'target' Aaron Swartz, we did not seek federal prosecution, punishment, or jail time, and we did not oppose a plea bargain."
The report says MIT "adopted a position of remaining neutral, with limited involvement" and that its decision -- despite requests from Swartz's family and from two MIT faculty members -- not to issue a statement during the case or advocate publicly on Swartz's behalf was the result of talks with an attorney that suggested such actions wouldn't help -- and might even cause harm to -- Swartz's legal efforts.
However, the report says, MIT failed to consider Swartz's reputation in the realm of digital technology and open access or that "the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [the law under which Swartz was charged] is a poorly drafted and questionable criminal law as applied to modern computing, one that affects the Internet community as a whole and is widely criticized; and that the United States government was pursuing an overtly aggressive prosecution."
The report concludes by seriously questioning the institute's hands-off approach.
"If the Review Panel is forced to highlight just one issue for reflection," the report reads, "we would choose to look to the MIT administration's maintenance of a 'neutral' hands-off attitude that regarded the prosecution as a legal dispute to which it was not a party." And it continues:
As a case study, this is a textbook example of the very controversies where the world seeks MIT's insight and leadership...A friend of Aaron Swartz stressed in one of our interviews that MIT will continue to be at the cutting edge in information technology and, in today's world, challenges like those presented in Aaron Swartz's case will arise again and again. With that realization, "Neutrality on these cases is an incoherent stance. It's not the right choice for a tough leader or a moral leader."
A PDF of the full report is available here. Reif's letter announcing it (PDF) is here. And newly released documents pertaining to the case (PDF) are here.
You can also check out MIT's own news story and an FAQ here and here, respectively.
