MIT report just came out. It's bad. My statement in response.
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman
Jul 30, 2013, 11:39:17 AM7/30/13
to aaron_swartz
Report claims that MIT was "neutral". One choice quote I particularly dislike: “We recognize the desire for a simple take-away,” the report concludes, but adds: “We can’t offer that. We have not found a silver bullet with which MIT could have simply prevented the tragedy.”
MIT President Reif puts out in his statement: "From studying this review of MIT’s role, I am confident that MIT’s decisions were reasonable, appropriate and made in good faith. The report confirms my trust in the members of the MIT community involved in the Swartz events. Throughout, they have acted with integrity and heart, and served MIT with outstanding professionalism."
My initial statement here:
"MIT’s behavior throughout the case was reprehensible, and this report is quite frankly a whitewash.
Here are the facts: This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly, “We don’t want this prosecution to go forward” – and Steve Heymann and Carmen Ortiz would have had no case. We have an institution to contrast MIT with – JSTOR, who came out immediately and publicly against the prosecution. Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so.
And even now, MIT is still stonewalling. Wired reporter Kevin Poulsen FOIA’d the Secret Service’s files on Aaron’s case, and judge ordered them to be released. The only reason they haven’t been is because MIT has filed an objection. If MIT is at all serious about implementing any reforms to stop this kind of tragedy from happening again, it must stop objecting to the release of information about the case."
Here are the facts: This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly, “We don’t want this prosecution to go forward” – and Steve Heymann and Carmen Ortiz would have had no case. We have an institution to contrast MIT with – JSTOR, who came out immediately and publicly against the prosecution. Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so.
And even now, MIT is still stonewalling. Wired reporter Kevin Poulsen FOIA’d the Secret Service’s files on Aaron’s case, and judge ordered them to be released. The only reason they haven’t been is because MIT has filed an objection. If MIT is at all serious about implementing any reforms to stop this kind of tragedy from happening again, it must stop objecting to the release of information about the case."
--
This is my personal email address. If you are emailing me about SumOfUs-related matters, please email me at ta...@sumofus.org.
Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman
Matt Stoller
Jul 30, 2013, 11:55:53 AM7/30/13
to Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, aaron_swartz
What a poorly written passive aggressive piece of shit. Here's page 14:
"It was not part of our charge in this review to draw conclusions, but rather to determine facts and to consider what can be learned from this tragedy"
"It was not part of our charge in this review to draw conclusions, but rather to determine facts and to consider what can be learned from this tragedy"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Remember Aaron Swartz" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to aaron_swartz...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Matt Stoller
Matthew Carroll
Jul 30, 2013, 11:57:16 AM7/30/13
to Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, aaron_swartz
Looks like AP picked up on the "whitewash" comment (although unfortunately none of the substance) -- http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/07/mit_review_says_school_didnt_target_aaron_swartz
Also: I posted Taren's statement to Reddit as it wasn't there yet: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1jcrsv/mit_report_on_aaron_swartz_is_a_whitewash/ (upvote if you feel so inclined.)
Also: I posted Taren's statement to Reddit as it wasn't there yet: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1jcrsv/mit_report_on_aaron_swartz_is_a_whitewash/ (upvote if you feel so inclined.)
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman <tare...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Remember Aaron Swartz" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to aaron_swartz...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Matthew Carroll
Campaigns Director, Leadnow.ca - À l'Action
Bettina Neuefeind
Jul 30, 2013, 1:16:58 PM7/30/13
to Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, aaron_swartz
I quite understand the feeling, Taren; it is hardly the assumption of responsibility one would have hoped for.
I haven't been able to read through the whole report, so can't comment comprehensively, but having reviewed the introduction and conclusion, feel at a minimum:
Re MIT on its position of neutrality in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, truer words were never spoken: “Neutrality on these cases is an incoherent stance. It’s not the right choice for a tough leader or a moral leader.” Being a neutral bystander throughout the course of a two year course of brutal bullying is no neutrality at all.
Here the context, p. 101 of the report at http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pdf, which places this commentary within the position of 'MIT didn't do anything wrong,' which I regard (not having had time to read the complete report) as a dubious conclusion:
If the Review Panel is forced to highlight just one issue for reflection, 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. This attitude was complemented by the MIT community’s apparent lack of attention to the ruinous collision of hacker ethics, open-source ideals, questionable laws, and aggressive CONCLUSION'''|''101
prosecutions that was playing out in its midst. 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.”
In closing, our review can suggest this lesson: MIT is respected for world-class work in information technology, for promoting open access to online information, and for dealing wisely with the risks of computer abuse. The world looksto MIT to be at the forefront of these areas. Looking back on the Aaron Swartz case, the world didn’t see leadership. As one person involved in the decisions put it: “MIT didn’t do anything wrong; but we didn’t do ourselves proud.”
It has not been the Panel’s charge for this review to make judgments, rather only to learn and help others learn. In doing so, let us all recognize that, by responding as we did, MIT missed an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership that we pride ourselves on. Not meeting, accepting, and embracing the responsibility of leadership can bring disappointment. In the world at large, disappointment can easily progress to disillusionment and even outrage, as the Aaron Swartz tragedy has demonstrated with terrible clarity.
Ben Wikler
Jul 30, 2013, 2:03:09 PM7/30/13
to Bettina Neuefeind, aaron_swartz, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman
Fyi: The friend being quoted there is none other than Taren herself.
Kelsey Kauffman
Jul 30, 2013, 3:34:44 PM7/30/13
to Ben Wikler, Bettina Neuefeind, aaron_swartz, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman
Washington Post:
The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages