This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/us/mit-releases-report-on-its-role-in-the-case-of-aaron-swartz.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
M.I.T. Releases Report on Its Role in the Case of Aaron Swartz M.I.T. Cleared in Report After Suicide of Activist
(about 9 hours later)
A long-awaited report released Tuesday by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that it made mistakes but engaged in no wrongdoing in the case of Aaron Swartz, a renowned programmer and charismatic technology activist who committed suicide in January while facing a federal trial on charges of hacking into the institute’s computer network. A long-awaited report released Tuesday by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the university made mistakes but engaged in no wrongdoing in the case of Aaron Swartz, a renowned programmer and charismatic technology activist who committed suicide in January while facing a federal trial on charges of hacking into the M.I.T. computer network.
Mr. Swartz was arrested in January 2011 after having downloaded more than four million scholarly articles from the subscription-based online archive JSTOR; to gain access to M.I.T.'s network, he entered an unlocked closet in the basement of a campus building. M.I.T. did not urge federal law enforcement officials to prosecute Mr. Swartz, the report found, and remained neutral in the case. But the university “missed an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership that we pride ourselves on,” based on its reputation as an institution known “for promoting open access to online information, and for dealing wisely with the risks of computer abuse.”
Mr. Swartz was arrested in January 2011 after downloading more than four million scholarly articles from the fee-based online archive JSTOR; to gain access, he evaded multiple efforts to block him, and even entered an unlocked closet in the basement of a campus building to plug directly into the network.
Mr. Swartz had long argued for public access to many kinds of important documents hidden behind walls of copyright. What he intended to do with the documents has not been established, but he was a co-author of a “guerrilla open-access manifesto” that stated, “We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world.”Mr. Swartz had long argued for public access to many kinds of important documents hidden behind walls of copyright. What he intended to do with the documents has not been established, but he was a co-author of a “guerrilla open-access manifesto” that stated, “We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world.”
The criminal case drew worldwide attention, in part because Mr. Swartz was just 26 years old at the time of his death and because the maximum possible sentence, initially said to be more than 30 years, suggested prosecutorial bullying to critics of the case and illustrated the disparity between punishment for high-tech crimes and other offenses. (Negotiations had taken place for a sentence of less than a year but were no longer under way at the time of Mr. Swartz’s death.) The criminal case drew worldwide attention, in part because Mr. Swartz was just 26 at the time of his death and because the maximum possible sentence, initially said to be more than 30 years, suggested prosecutorial bullying to critics of the case, and illustrated the harshness of laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. (Negotiations had taken place for a sentence of less than a year but were no longer under way at the time of Mr. Swartz’s death.)
The report states that in Mr. Swartz’s case “M.I.T. missed an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership that we pride ourselves on,” based on its reputation as an institution known “for promoting open access to online information, and for dealing wisely with the risks of computer abuse.” In an open letter, the M.I.T. president, L. Rafael Reif, applauded the “careful account” that he said set “the record straight by dispelling widely circulated myths.” The report, he said, “makes clear that M.I.T. did not ‘target’ Aaron Swartz, we did not seek federal prosecution, punishment or jail time, and we did not oppose a plea bargain.”
In a letter to students and faculty and staff members, the institute’s president, L. Rafael Reif applauded the “careful account” that he said set “the record straight by dispelling widely circulated myths.” The report, he said, “makes clear that M.I.T. did not ‘target’ Aaron Swartz, we did not seek federal prosecution, punishment or jail time, and we did not oppose a plea bargain.” In a briefing for reporters, however, Mr. Reif also said “we did recognize that the government had its job to do in upholding the law.” M.I.T., he said, “acted appropriately.”
He also said he read the report “with a tremendous sense of sorrow” over the pain to Mr. Swartz’s family and friends, and to the Internet community, which “lost an exceptional leader.” Mr. Reif said he read the report “with a tremendous sense of sorrow” over the pain to Mr. Swartz’s family and friends, and to the Internet community, which “lost an exceptional leader.”
“Even those of us who never knew him,” he wrote, “mourn the loss of someone so young and so brilliant.” The 182-page report was written by a panel led by Hal Abelson, a professor of computer science and a well-regarded activist on the open-access issues championed by Mr. Swartz. The panel interviewed about 50 people and reviewed 10,000 pages of documents. The college’s administration had no involvement in its work and did not see the report until the panel had completed it.
The 180-page report was written by a panel led by Hal Abelson, a professor of computer science and a well-regarded activist on the open-access issues championed by Mr. Swartz. The panel interviewed about 50 people and reviewed 10,000 pages of documents. Among other things, the report noted that while the college made no public statements in support of Mr. Swartz or against him, officials privately told the lead prosecutor in the case, Stephen P. Heymann, that “the government should not be under the impression that M.I.T. wanted a jail sentence for Aaron Swartz.”
It will almost certainly not satisfy those who have argued that M.I.T. could have done much more to end the prosecution of a young man whose promise was great and whose actions caused no damage to the institution’s computer network or to the database of scholarly articles. Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Mr. Swartz’s partner at the time of his death, called the report a “whitewash.” According to the report, Mr. Heymann responded that at least some prison time was appropriate as a deterrent to others.
Robert Swartz, Mr. Swartz’s father, said Professor Abelson had “done a good job collecting and presenting the facts,” but he had no compliments for M.I.T. or its role. “M.I.T. claimed it was neutral,” he said, “and it was not and besides, should have advocated on Aaron’s behalf.” The report will almost certainly not satisfy those who have argued that M.I.T. could have done much more to end the prosecution of a young man whose promise was so great and whose actions caused no damage to the institution’s computer network or to the database of scholarly articles. Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Mr. Swartz’s partner at the time of his death, called the report a “whitewash.”
The report, he said, “is an important step in understanding what went wrong in the handling of Aaron’s case.” Robert Swartz, Mr. Swartz’s father, said the university was anything but neutral, pointing to aid that it provided to prosecutors as part of the investigation. M.I.T., he said, “should have advocated on Aaron’s behalf.” Instead, he said, the report depicts an institution that aided a “vindictive and cruel” prosecution, and “shows no compassion whatsoever.” Through its actions, he said, “M.I.T. in fact played a central role in Aaron’s suicide.”
He said that what happens next would show whether an institution devoted to learning has learned anything from the tragedy. He said that what happened next would show whether an institution devoted to learning has learned anything from the tragedy, and said he looked forward to working with Mr. Reif “to drive real structural change at the university to make sure that this kind of tragedy never happens again.”
“What’s important is M.I.T.'s response to the report,” he said, adding that he looks forward to working with Mr. Reif “to drive real structural change at the university to make sure that this kind of tragedy never happens again.” In an interview, Mr. Abelson said that the report was “more a criticism of the school’s inactions than its actions,” and that the M.I.T. community “was not as engaged as it could be.” Faculty members and students, he said, paid little attention to Mr. Swartz’s case before the suicide.
He applauded Robert Swartz’s determination to work with the university to improve its policies. “When he talks about M.I.T. changing, that’s what we all want,” he said — including “maybe not inviting the police in so fast.”
Colleges like M.I.T., he said, have an obligation to help train future generations not simply in how to use the powerful tools of technology, but to use them wisely. “You can do things that cause tremendous good,” he said, “and you can do things that can harm you to the extent that you can destroy yourself.”
“Aaron Swartz,” he added, “did both.”