MIT report on Swartz

From the MIT committee that looked into the Swartz case. A well organized report; examination of the law and the technology, timelines, individual roles, some institutional rationalization. Well worth reading for "How it works" alone.

Absolutely chilling.

"MIT never requested that a criminal prosecution be brought against Aaron Swartz.

" MIT was never asked by either the prosecution or the defense whether Aaron Swartz’s access to the MIT network was
authorized or unauthorized —nor did MIT ask this of itself.

"... JSTOR was not pressing for criminal charges and preferred, from its perspective, that no charges be brought... The
government did not ask JSTOR’s management whether there was unauthorized access, fraud, deception, or damage

"According to Aaron Swartz’s attorneys, at no time did federal prosecutors entertain a plea agreement for him that assured him no jail time, and the prosecutors always insisted on a plea to a felony as opposed to a lesser charge, that is, to a misdemeanor. It was during these discussions Andrew Good informed the lead prosecutor that Aaron Swartz was suicide risk, and the prosecutor responded that the office could have him locked up (presumably to prevent such an occurrence).

"... the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a poorly drafted and questionable criminal law ..., one that affects the Internet community as a whole and is widely criticized; ...the United States government was pursuing an overtly aggressive prosecution.

"The United States Attorneys are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. U.S. Attorneys and their AUSAs have primary responsibility for enforcing the federal criminal statutes within their districts, and do so without direct supervision or permission from the Attorney General or the DOJ."

~ Above Quote Taken From PDF Found in Source Page: http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ ~