When I was an engineering student at MIT in the 1980s, a quarter century seemed like an eternity. College students focus on the here and now — a class, a grade, a night out — not on what they might be doing at 50. (Believe me: The idea of a regular Globe column was far from my mind at the time.)
To no surprise, the years that have passed since I graduated in 1986 feel shorter when glimpsed in a rearview mirror. But the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that has emerged in coverage of Aaron Swartz’s suicide is hard for me to recognize. The school, remembered by many alumni for its encouragement of the creative and unconventional, is said to have taken a hard line toward Swartz, an activist for digital freedom, who used the institute’s facilities to download millions of academic journal articles.
Comments
The answer is a return to the primacy of the individual and away from the primacy of the group, whatever those groups may be: experts, the herd (the majority), minorities, politically correct organizations, or "the village".
It's really sad that a fine , bright, man had to commit suicide for MIT to begin searching it's "soul".
A fine, bright man who thought it was his right to steal other peoples work product, and snoop illegally.
Other than that...a shining example of liberal thinking...
I never thought the day would cone when I actually agree for the most part with what Sununu wrote h here today.
Sorry, but a thief is a thief.
He made his own bed, and the didn't want to lie in it.
As the gangsta's say: "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
Unlike you, the US Department of Justice is required to take account of the vast range of difference among criminal activities. How much harm was caused by Mr. Swartz's actions? How many crimes with greater consequences went unprosecuted by the US Attorney's office because they chose to resolve this case with a sledge hammer when a fly swatter would have sufficed?
no response is a response. I think MIT decided that they had no reason to back schwartz since he wasn't even a student. why would they defend a hacker and a thief who only used their resources to make his own personal "political" statement? they had no obligation to this young man; certainly not to the extent that they should incur legal fees or assume a position -- pro or con -- on his actions. it is unfortunate and tragic that this young man took his own life, but honestly, MIT has no responsibility in the matter.
...and really, a "crisis of values"? please.
Agree that MIT's silence is due in part, to the absence of having any tie or affiliation with the (now) deceased hacker. Why would or should they defend him? I can't imagine they proceeded without legal advice, and are doing what they have been advised to do per legal ramifications. For every MIT graduate, there are probably thousands that could figure out how to hack into a database such as JSTOR; as bright as Swartz was, it's not as though he broke into the Pentagon. This case is very complicated, more than meets the eye, but it's also irresponsible to pin the blame on any one person or institution for the suicide of this young man. The rest of Sununu's contentions in this article, however, are spot on with regard to "unrestrained use of prosecutorial power", common sense and more understanding of what constitutes government information that should be in the public domain. Saying MIT is culpable ... not so sure about that.
"Unauthorized " use of a computer system, commonly known as hacking is not a victimless crime. It is a crime and causes lots of trouble in the world. The prosecutor made an attempt to adjust the recommended sentence. There is a question whether the suicide was caused by illness or circumstances.
Given MIT's long history of working closely with the federal government, I find their silence in this matter unsurprising. They have every incentive to share the clear view of recent administrations of both parties that uncontrolled information is a bad thing.
I am pleased to see that Mr. Sununu has stepped away today from his own tendency to boiler plate. I hope it continues.
This comment has been removed.
The tragic case of Aaron Swartz doesn't compare to the history of stunts and "hacks" at MIT. He broke into a subscription business to prove that he could. He felt that this business's product should be available at no charge. Unfortunately, he was fragile. Torn between life, death and accomplishment, he lacked the mettle of most activists who accept the threat of punishment when taking a stand, and have a plan to fight it or accept it. This is a clear case of blame the victim and blame law enforcement. MIT is the silent victim and the U.S. Attorney's Office is being demonized for offering an appropriate minimum punishment. The law requires that one is to be punished when a law is broken.
This comment has been removed.
Should you be sent to prison, given a federal felony conviction, for violating the _terms of service_ on a web site? That is what he did! He had a right to download each document he downloaded.
This comment has been removed.
There is a poem about the different attitude the law takes to the powerful and the weak:
The law locks up the hapless felon
who steals the goose from off the common,
but lets the greater felon loose
who steals the common from the goose.
Swartz was downloading research that you had already paid for through your taxes, or that was in the public domain. The aggregators who set up barriers to access, so that you pay again for what your taxes have already paid for, are law-abiding profiteers. But who is the greater villain?
Thankfully, people are starting to realize that research for which your taxes have paid should be free to all, and a few of our government institutions are requiring open-access versions of all research results. It should be made retrospective.
The "villian" must be proven and convicted in a court of law, perhaps through a class-action suit, not in an arbitrary and frivolous public display of activism. We are a country of laws and equal justice. He chose to break the law to expose the "villian" rather than work with the law. He had his rights and he didn't exercise them.
@ford: It's called civil disobedience. Like taking a seat in the part of the bus that is reserved for white people--and getting arrested. Like sitting at a lunch counter--and getting arrested. Like going to a polling place and trying to vote--and getting arrested. When the law is wrong, the only way to change it is to break it first.
Surprising that Mr Sununu in this instance is backing an individual who is going around the "free market" system -- i.e. taking things that have value and cost to someone or something, and distributing them for free, thus preventing the free market from operating as free. Well, perhaps part of the so-called free market is also where some smart guy figures out a way around the free market. In any case, that is not my main comment here. My main comment is that Mr. Sununu is romanticising the past concerning MIT. I was at MIT at the same time as Mr Sununu. They could be as corporationally (not a word) self-centered as any corportation, or any other entity. I suspect in this case MIT feared being considered liable if they backed Mr. Swartz. This is their way of having plausible deniability of liability. They would have done this in the early 80's, both 19xx and 18xx. MIT has always been a corportation (read free market, self interested). Not that that's a bad thing, but it's always been that way. The free-spirit rebel is still in the culture -- the student body, the professors, but not the corporation. That's in it for the money, just like any corporation.