Quote:

 

http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pdf

Report to the President
MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz

[Note that MIT commissioned a REPORT on how it responded to the Swartz prosecution. That's more than Duke
did. There has been NO commission or REPORT on how Duke responded to the false lacrosse accusations,
or the attempt to frame three innocent DUKE students for a crime which never happened.]

"Time is of the essence." [President's letter establishing the commission]

(snip)


In coming to assume the stance of neutrality, OGC considered that Aaron Swartz was not,
and had never been, an MIT enrolled student; nor was he ever a faculty member or
employee. If he had been a student, there could have been involvement of additional MIT
personnel, such as faculty advisers and deans, and a possible referral to the MIT
Committee on Discipline. The involvement of the disciplinary committee could have
opened the way for MIT to lobby against a prosecution, in favor of its own internal
resolution of an “internal” matter.

[Where were Duke's faculty advisors and deans, and its Disciplinary Committees? Could
the use of such a committee have been a way for Duke to lobby against a prosecution?
Where were the Duke chaplains?]

(snip)

[In an earlier case] Andrew Huang(2002)

The Microsoft Xbox was a video game console introduced in 2001. It was designed to
run only particular software licensed by Microsoft, using cryptographic methods to
implement this restriction. Microsoft’s licensing revenue for the software subsidized the
cost of the machine, thus making it a powerful computer at a low price. In 2002, Andrew
“Bunnie” Huang, a graduate student working in computer design at the MIT Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory (AI Lab), discovered how to bypass this restriction, and thereby
make Xboxes usable as general-purpose computers, with potentially serious
consequences for Microsoft’s product plans.

Huang posted a description of the method
in his blog.

Soon afterward, an engineer with the Microsoft Xbox team contacted Huang and asked
him to remove the posting. Huang informed his advisor, who cautioned him that the
posting might be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
and suggested
asking MIT lawyers for help. Huang asked, and the response he received was a letter
stating:

. . . the article is your personal work, and not part of your studies, research
or other activities at MIT. . . . as an MIT lawyer, I am not able to provide
you with any legal advice concerning it. . . .

Huang described the predicament to his advisor and some other faculty members at the
MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. One of them arranged for Huang to get pro bono
assistance from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The EFF attorney advised that,
as a precautionary measure, Huang should emphasize the academic aspects of his work
by rewriting it as a scholarly paper and sending this to Microsoft for approval (following
DMCA guidelines) for publication. Huang wrote the paper, and the faculty who were
advising him arranged to publish it as an Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Memorandum. At the same time, they informally contacted Microsoft executives,
alerting them to what was being planned and advocating that Microsoft approve
publication as a demonstration of its support for scholarly research. Microsoft agreed, and
the memo was published and presented at an academic conference. Huang later expanded
his work into a book.

In 2013, Huang released a free reprinting of his book in honor of Aaron Swartz. He also
wrote in his blog:

Aaron’s treatment by MIT is not unfamiliar to me . . . . I still remember
the crushing disappointment of receiving a letter from MIT legal
repudiating any association with my work, effectively leaving me on my
own to face Microsoft. However, in my case, the faculty of my then-lab,
the AI lab, were outraged by this treatment. They openly defied MIT legal
by publishing my work as an official AI Lab Memo, thereby granting me
greater negotiating leverage with Microsoft. Microsoft, mindful of the
potential backlash from the court of public opinion over suing an openly
legitimized academic researcher, came to a civil understanding with me
over the issue.

This example points to the flexibility available without the presence of outside law
enforcement. It also illustrates the point that when it is a student who has a situation like
this, it naturally brings in additional members of the MIT community.

(snip)

Quote:

 

[another example] Star Simpson (2007)

On September 21, 2007, MIT sophomore Star Simpson was arrested at gunpoint at
Boston’s Logan Airport. Simpson, who had gone to the airport to meet her boyfriend,
entered Terminal C wearing homemade electronic jewelry: a lapel pin consisting of
circuit board with flashing LEDs, which she had built in her free time, at the MIT
Electronic Research Society club. Airport employees mistook this for a bomb and called
airport security and the police. Simpson was accused of disorderly conduct and
possession of a hoax device: a charge that could have resulted in up to five years in state
prison.

Simpson was sentenced to pretrial probation and ordered to perform community
service. The charges were eventually dropped.

On the same day as the arrest, before anyone in the MIT administration had spoken with
Simpson, the MIT News Office issued a press release saying that “As reported to us by
authorities, Ms. Simpson’s actions were reckless and understandably created alarm at the
airport.”

Many members of the MIT community did not view Simpson’s behavior as
reckless. They were upset at what they regarded to be an unwarranted and prejudicial
public statement by the Institute to the detriment of one of its members.

At the October 17, 2007, faculty meeting, several faculty members introduced for
discussion a resolution proposing that “the MIT faculty request that the MIT
administration refrain from making public statements that characterize . . . the behavior
and motives of members of the MIT community whose actions are the subject . . . of
pending criminal investigation.” The resolution was taken up at the following December
19 faculty meeting. It was eventually voted down (31-36) after two hours of vehement
debate, which included the offering and defeat of several alternative resolutions. In the
end, none of the resolutions were adopted, but the intensity of the meeting made a lasting
impression on the administration.

At the May 2008 faculty meeting, President Susan
Hockfield expressed regret over her administration’s handling of the case. She stated that
the administration regretted its public statement, that the decision to make the statement
was rushed, and that it included a poor choice of words.

[Note that Brodhead apologized ONLY for not keeping in closer contact with the families.
Nothing about THAT could make Duke the subject of a liability suit. Admitting to any
other kind of wrongful statement or error might be conceeding liability--and hence,
his statement was carefulluy crafted--but NOT the sincere apology and confession
which the situation required. (MOO)]


These October and December faculty meetings, and the proposed resolution, were cited
by the administration as part of the reasoning for not making a statement about Aaron
Swartz.

Quote:

 

They were upset at what they regarded to be an unwarranted and prejudicial
public statement by the Institute to the detriment of one of its members.

Quote:

 

“the MIT faculty request that the MIT
administration refrain from making public statements that characterize . . . the behavior
and motives of members of the MIT community whose actions are the subject . . . of
pending criminal investigation.”

Quote:

 

They openly defied MIT legal
by publishing my work as an official AI Lab Memo,

Quote:

 

1. What support, if any, does MIT offer for students undergoing federal investigations or criminal
charges?


Answer: MIT students facing criminal investigation or prosecution have several MIT
resources available to them for guidance and support, including Student Support Services
and, if needed, MIT Medical.


[What support did the falsely-accused lax players get from any Student Support Services,
faculty deans, advisers, chaplains, etc.?]

The Office of the General Counsel cannot provide legal
advice or representation to students—nor to faculty or other members of the MIT
community—on their personal legal issues. Professional responsibilities governing
lawyers prohibit the OGCfrom representing individuals in their personal issues because
the OGC represents only MIT.

[So who did Wes Covington represent?]

The OGC refers individuals needing personal advice to
sources of legal assistance, and when asked, OGC will provide general guidance and
assistance to community members as to finding counsel.

[Repeat: So who did Wes Covington represent?]

Quote:

 

7. What options did MIT have in terms of issuing a public statement of support of Swartz?
At what point would it have been legally possible to issue a statement?

Answer: Making a public statement was indeed an option considered by MIT at various
stages of the events related to Aaron’s prosecution. It would have been legally possible to
do so at any time, and no formal MIT policy would have prevented it