MIT Moves to Intervene in Release of Aaron Swartz’s Secret Service File(wired.com)
wired.com
MIT Moves to Intervene in Release of Aaron Swartz’s Secret Service File
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/mit-swartz-intervene/all/1
15 comments
> It is interesting that they have never heard of third party's intervening in FOIA cases because it actually is a common occurrence in academia.
They didn't say thy never heard of a third party intervening. They were more specific: he says "I have never, in fifteen years of reporting, seen a non-governmental party argue for the right to interfere in a Freedom of Information Act release of government documents." The key here is GOVERNMENT documents.
The example you give:
> Many times, a professor at another university will file a FOIA request for your grant application. If you feel your research plans are threatened by having the details of your grant passed along to this other professor, your university will intervene on your behalf in the FOIA request
is a third party intervening to try to stop a FOIA request involving their own documents. By "their own documents" I mean they wrote the documents. The documents were then submitted to the government, which is why they can be reached by FOIA, but they are not "government documents" in the sense that the writer intends, I believe. The documents MIT is trying to get involved with were written by the government. They are partially about MIT, but they are not MIT's documents in the way a grant application from MIT would be.
They didn't say thy never heard of a third party intervening. They were more specific: he says "I have never, in fifteen years of reporting, seen a non-governmental party argue for the right to interfere in a Freedom of Information Act release of government documents." The key here is GOVERNMENT documents.
The example you give:
> Many times, a professor at another university will file a FOIA request for your grant application. If you feel your research plans are threatened by having the details of your grant passed along to this other professor, your university will intervene on your behalf in the FOIA request
is a third party intervening to try to stop a FOIA request involving their own documents. By "their own documents" I mean they wrote the documents. The documents were then submitted to the government, which is why they can be reached by FOIA, but they are not "government documents" in the sense that the writer intends, I believe. The documents MIT is trying to get involved with were written by the government. They are partially about MIT, but they are not MIT's documents in the way a grant application from MIT would be.
That's a reasonable explanation, but "we have scientific knowledge that we'd like to hide, an we're asking the government for more money to further our understanding of the subject" isn't much of an excuse. Isn't the entire rationale for providing government funding for academic research premised on the idea that scientific knowledge is a public good, to be shared freely?
The government has purposely set up the process in an adversarial manner (you must prove why you uniquely are positioned to make scientific advances here, better than anyone else), so it's not surprising that the process plays out in an adversarial manner. The government also encourages institutions to be entrepreneurial by doing things like patenting their results, or keeping them as trade secrets to hand to spinoff companies, so academia can prove its worth in the startup economy.
Is this the best way to make scientific advances? Probably not. But it's a systemic problem. There is at least one study (I believe Canadian, can't find a link currently) which found that it would be more efficient just to give every researcher in Canada some baseline funding, rather than spending all the money they currently do on the adversarial funding process.
That was actually somewhat closer to the traditional CS funding model in the U.S., though largely accidentally, through military funding. Why did someone like Richard Stallman (not an academic) get employed for decades in the MIT AI Lab? Because DARPA gave non-micromanaged block grants to the MIT AI Lab to fund a "center of excellence" for years at a time, which they were free to use to employ staff as they saw fit. Nowadays most grants are 3 years long and very specific, so it's all about positioning yourself for the next 3-year grant, if you want to keep the lights on and your staff paid.
Is this the best way to make scientific advances? Probably not. But it's a systemic problem. There is at least one study (I believe Canadian, can't find a link currently) which found that it would be more efficient just to give every researcher in Canada some baseline funding, rather than spending all the money they currently do on the adversarial funding process.
That was actually somewhat closer to the traditional CS funding model in the U.S., though largely accidentally, through military funding. Why did someone like Richard Stallman (not an academic) get employed for decades in the MIT AI Lab? Because DARPA gave non-micromanaged block grants to the MIT AI Lab to fund a "center of excellence" for years at a time, which they were free to use to employ staff as they saw fit. Nowadays most grants are 3 years long and very specific, so it's all about positioning yourself for the next 3-year grant, if you want to keep the lights on and your staff paid.
Grant applications contain plans and guesses. If you're better positioned to capitalize on someone else's plan, they're screwed. Grant applications are submitted with at least a partial understanding of confidentiality. Because they're confidential, you can't cite them.
The first group to publish a new result gets the cookies.
The first group to publish a new result gets the cookies.
"Isn't the entire rationale for providing government funding for academic research premised on the idea that scientific knowledge is a public good, to be shared freely?"
No it isn't, it's only a part of it, and only applicable in some cases. Other rationales include stimulating research on things that are considered too risky by the mainstream manufacturers, so as to facilitate radical innovations (in the Geoffrey Moore meaning of that concept). Under those circumstances, allowing patents on the results is required otherwise the people doing the research wouldn't have a reason to do it in the first place.
Plus, the grant money is only a part of the eventual results; the original ideas, the extra labor, outside financing, etc are equal contributors.
No it isn't, it's only a part of it, and only applicable in some cases. Other rationales include stimulating research on things that are considered too risky by the mainstream manufacturers, so as to facilitate radical innovations (in the Geoffrey Moore meaning of that concept). Under those circumstances, allowing patents on the results is required otherwise the people doing the research wouldn't have a reason to do it in the first place.
Plus, the grant money is only a part of the eventual results; the original ideas, the extra labor, outside financing, etc are equal contributors.
It has to do with competition for scarce grant resources, and some researchers being cutthroats. Some of them are surprisingly petty, too.
Does the researcher whose grant application is being sought need to do anything to discover the FOIA request, or does the filing automatically notify them in some manner?
Sometimes people attempt to FOIA lab notebooks. If you're a patent lawyer, you've nothing to lose by tying up a research group in knots.
It's bad news when it happens.
It's bad news when it happens.
I thought academia couldn't get any more childish, and then here we are. Wow.
"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." - Wallace Stanley Sayre. [aka Sayre's Law]
What gives you the impression that it is childish rather then just working with a system they can not change?
There is another option, which is to do your own research and live (and die) by a personal code of ethics.
I don't believe that people "sell out," though I do believe that people "buy in." Adhering or conforming to a system you do not believe in is "buying in" to it.
I don't believe that people "sell out," though I do believe that people "buy in." Adhering or conforming to a system you do not believe in is "buying in" to it.
The follow kind situation is what I think motivates fighting FOIAs:
Depending on your field a research could take a few years to develop a technique. The technique by itself will not produce a very valuable publication, but the results it can reveal could be ground breaking.
In the grant proposal, in order to convince those who are judging of the value of the technique, you detail some of the hard won technique. A competitor issues a FOIA learns the technique and may very well be able to publish the ground breaking results first.
This means years of work and funding have had considerably less benefit then anticipate. It is likely it will be a little harder to win additional grant/funding due to several apparently unproductive years on the researches part.
Depending on your field a research could take a few years to develop a technique. The technique by itself will not produce a very valuable publication, but the results it can reveal could be ground breaking.
In the grant proposal, in order to convince those who are judging of the value of the technique, you detail some of the hard won technique. A competitor issues a FOIA learns the technique and may very well be able to publish the ground breaking results first.
This means years of work and funding have had considerably less benefit then anticipate. It is likely it will be a little harder to win additional grant/funding due to several apparently unproductive years on the researches part.
It's a nice way to think about it, but you have to sell out from one system to buy into another, right?
Issuing FOIA requests to screw over a competitor seems a bit much, right?
Then again, there may well be some aspect of this I'm missing.
Then again, there may well be some aspect of this I'm missing.
Would the university really be considered a separate third party given they usually hold and administer the funds for a grant and the researchers tend to be affiliated with them?
MIT is no exception when it comes to the current class of inverse heroes. Recent events have shown that every person or organization will stoop as low as they can go to protect self-interest while preaching ethics and accountability to others and expecting them to follow in any condition.
"While in the past people of rank or status were those and only those who took risks, who had the downside for their actions, and heroes were those who did so for the sake of others, today the exact reverse is taking place. We are witnessing the “rise of a new class of inverse heroes, that is, bureaucrats, bankers, Davos-attending members of the I.A.N.D. (International Association of Name Droppers), and academics with too much power and no real downside and/or accountability. They game the system while citizens pay the price.”
Excerpt From: Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. “Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder.”
"While in the past people of rank or status were those and only those who took risks, who had the downside for their actions, and heroes were those who did so for the sake of others, today the exact reverse is taking place. We are witnessing the “rise of a new class of inverse heroes, that is, bureaucrats, bankers, Davos-attending members of the I.A.N.D. (International Association of Name Droppers), and academics with too much power and no real downside and/or accountability. They game the system while citizens pay the price.”
Excerpt From: Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. “Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder.”
Agreed. Further, if helping the secret service to prosecute under these just new laws <sic> is such a worthwhile cause, what are they so afraid of? Should they not be proud to be identified?
>"MIT claims it’s afraid the release of Swartz’s file will identify the names of MIT people who helped the Secret Service and federal prosecutors pursue felony charges against Swartz for his bulk downloading of academic articles from MIT’s network in 2011."
Let me get this straight. There are academics involved, who are supposed to be professionally on the side of the freedom of information. They instead choose to inform on a colleague and ruin his life and then, knowing what they had done is morally objectionable on many levels, they use the fact that they might well be criticised for it to stifle information again and try to justify anonymity for themselves?!?
If I was a bright young student I would no longer consider MIT. What can one hope to learn from people like these?
Sadly, this whole case brings up uncomfortable parallels with anonymous informants always crawling out of the woodwork and taking delight in ruining their neighbours' lives, whenever a despotic regime takes hold of a society.
>"MIT claims it’s afraid the release of Swartz’s file will identify the names of MIT people who helped the Secret Service and federal prosecutors pursue felony charges against Swartz for his bulk downloading of academic articles from MIT’s network in 2011."
Let me get this straight. There are academics involved, who are supposed to be professionally on the side of the freedom of information. They instead choose to inform on a colleague and ruin his life and then, knowing what they had done is morally objectionable on many levels, they use the fact that they might well be criticised for it to stifle information again and try to justify anonymity for themselves?!?
If I was a bright young student I would no longer consider MIT. What can one hope to learn from people like these?
Sadly, this whole case brings up uncomfortable parallels with anonymous informants always crawling out of the woodwork and taking delight in ruining their neighbours' lives, whenever a despotic regime takes hold of a society.
This is a ridiculous line of argument.
Let me re-contextualize with a parallel scenario. Suppose you are the victim of any of crime. Suppose your teenage daughter is the one who actually called the police. Suppose the perpetrator of the crime was an animal rights activist with a large cohort of people with similar viewpoints who occasionally in a mob mentality anonymously engage in violence, or threats of violence. During the prosecution of the crime, the DoJ goes a little crazy and the accused commits suicide. The estate of the animal rights activist wants to release your daughter's bus route home from school, email address, and cell phone number.
Do you file to prevent this information to be released?
Do you file to prevent this information to be released?
Sorry but it is your "re-contextualizing" that is ridiculous.
Swartz never engaged in violence or threats of it. All he did was to download a large number of publicly funded scientific papers that he should have had access to anyway. MIT did not just report him. They made sure that the secret service was there in a couple of minutes and then they insisted on prosecuting him. One could argue that it was the MIT's insistence on prosecution that did him in, as much as the eagerness of the DoJ.
MIT made a number of bad decisions and this latest one only continues this trend. Until someone is named to take personal responsibility for those decisions, or someone does the decent thing and owns up to them, the responsibility must lie with MIT as an institution.
Swartz never engaged in violence or threats of it. All he did was to download a large number of publicly funded scientific papers that he should have had access to anyway. MIT did not just report him. They made sure that the secret service was there in a couple of minutes and then they insisted on prosecuting him. One could argue that it was the MIT's insistence on prosecution that did him in, as much as the eagerness of the DoJ.
MIT made a number of bad decisions and this latest one only continues this trend. Until someone is named to take personal responsibility for those decisions, or someone does the decent thing and owns up to them, the responsibility must lie with MIT as an institution.
It is not Swartz, but certain (presumably lower case A) anonymous elements of the internet community who have phoned in multiple threats to MIT staff in the wake of his suicide. That is the subsequent violence that protection of information serves to prevent.
Swartz broke and entered MIT private property that is the crime I alluded to in my analogy. (See the matter in Massachusetts state court for details). MIT did not understand the nature of his actions on the wire before involving the Secret Service to assist in the investigation. At that point MIT has no more say in the prosecution. None. It is the United States Government's decision how to run the prosecution.
Swartz broke and entered MIT private property that is the crime I alluded to in my analogy. (See the matter in Massachusetts state court for details). MIT did not understand the nature of his actions on the wire before involving the Secret Service to assist in the investigation. At that point MIT has no more say in the prosecution. None. It is the United States Government's decision how to run the prosecution.
Seriously, seriously? you think that the previous batch aristocrats were more ethical than our current batch?
I'm wondering why MIT still hasn't released its report on how Aaron Swartz's situation was handled.
I think the report was supposed to have been released months ago.
I think the report was supposed to have been released months ago.
As far as I've been able to find, Hal Abelson's last statement was on May 13, when he wrote that the report would be released "this summer".
http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N26/swartz/2.html
This is indeed much delayed from his initial statement on January 22 that he hoped the report would be ready "in a few weeks."
http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N63/abelson.html
It's disappointing that it's taken this long.
http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N26/swartz/2.html
This is indeed much delayed from his initial statement on January 22 that he hoped the report would be ready "in a few weeks."
http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N63/abelson.html
It's disappointing that it's taken this long.
I'm eagerly awaiting that report too. Hal Abelson is a very respected professor, one of the good guys, and he's put his reputation on the line writing this report. I sure hope he's got the freedom to make it honest.
Their lawyers probably advised against it.
That seems likely, but I'm very disappointed that we haven't heard anything at all.
I remember that Hal Abelson was in charge of preparing the report, and he has taught ethics classes at MIT. I'm hoping that he makes some statement about the report at least.
I remember that Hal Abelson was in charge of preparing the report, and he has taught ethics classes at MIT. I'm hoping that he makes some statement about the report at least.
...because they are guilty as hell?
And/or because people move on, forget about things.
I'll wait to see the actual motion, but it seems reasonable that they would want the names of staff redacted to prevent them from getting death threats from people that equate them to leaders of the hitler youth.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5050412
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5050412
There is no evidence of death threats in that link.
Equating them to the leaders of the hitler youth may be an extreme interpretation but is not threatening.
My understanding is that the two prosecutors in the Aaron Schwartz case have reported receiving threats -- One email gloating at doxing him, one postcard of a guillotine and one of them had their facebook account hacked. I've always assumed that people in high profile jobs like that receive threats on a regular basis, and that given the unpredictability of 4chan / anonymous that the number and types of threats were unexpectedly tame.
http://www.businessinsider.com/aaron-swartz-prosecutors-thre...
Equating them to the leaders of the hitler youth may be an extreme interpretation but is not threatening.
My understanding is that the two prosecutors in the Aaron Schwartz case have reported receiving threats -- One email gloating at doxing him, one postcard of a guillotine and one of them had their facebook account hacked. I've always assumed that people in high profile jobs like that receive threats on a regular basis, and that given the unpredictability of 4chan / anonymous that the number and types of threats were unexpectedly tame.
http://www.businessinsider.com/aaron-swartz-prosecutors-thre...
From the article: "But it’s worth noting that names of third parties are already redacted from documents produced under FOIA."
So it would appear that the names are already redacted
So it would appear that the names are already redacted
I'm in no way condoning violence, threats or harassment of any kind.
But the faceless bureaucracy is the problem. If people can make stupid decisions then not take responsibility because someone somewhere on the internet said something dumb then these problems will never get fixed.
But the faceless bureaucracy is the problem. If people can make stupid decisions then not take responsibility because someone somewhere on the internet said something dumb then these problems will never get fixed.
The Streisand effect will come into play here. If they fail in their bid, everyone's going to pay extra attention to look for what they were trying to hide.
I recall a wise man once said, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
MIT must've done something really embarrassingly awful to want to suppress this.
And are, in turn, doing something embarrassingly awful by moving to suppress this.
(IMHO, of course).
(IMHO, of course).
So they are forced to choose the lesser of two embarrassments. I'm really curious what they are trying to hide.
Do they really think that this is making them look any better in this situation?
Another theory: they are conspiring in some sort of quid-pro-quo in order to give the government another chance in court or at least delay.
MIT gets a lot of direct and indirect government money, or is in other ways susceptible to influence. I imagine a federal prosecutor's office can be quite persuasive.
MIT gets a lot of direct and indirect government money, or is in other ways susceptible to influence. I imagine a federal prosecutor's office can be quite persuasive.
Clearly they must.
I wonder what they must be trying to hide then, because this looks pretty bad itself. I wonder if the same person may be behind both unreasonably disproportionate reactions...
I had the same disturbing thought. What if it was some muckety-muck at MIT leaning on the prosecutor's office the whole time in order to teach those meddling kids a lesson. Now that would be mucho-embarrassing if it came to light.
There are (at least) two ways to look at it:
1) They have no idea how it will be perceived from the "outside looking in."
2) They do know it will look bad, but they believe that it is worth it to protect the reputations of whomever might be revealed to have participated in the persecution.
1) They have no idea how it will be perceived from the "outside looking in."
2) They do know it will look bad, but they believe that it is worth it to protect the reputations of whomever might be revealed to have participated in the persecution.
Whats gonna happen? People are not going to stop going to MIT. The market it is in is education which is always growing and (sadly) the majority of people don't care what happened to Aaron Schwartz. MIT will still retain its top position and frankly I cannot fathom a scenario where it would have to face any serious consequences. So its most likely trying to hide something thats worth the loss of 'face' by filing this. But even if it fails, I don't think they give a fk.
>People are not going to stop going to MIT.
Well, actually... Let me provide a little insight. My daughter, a future engineer, has dropped MIT from her top choice to off the list. There are many schools that are nearly as good, and despite rankings, better than MIT.
Here's another cool little anecdote: I was in a meeting with director from NIST, along with another researcher and our director. He was in town to give a lecture as part of a regular lecture series we conduct through the school year, and I was meeting with him one-on-one to ask questions about the intersection of IT and power grid operations. He was relaying a story about some engineering project that they had asked MIT researchers for help on.
Suddenly our director burst out laughing. Said he couldn't contain it anymore. He says, "Yeah, we know about that project. We're the people MIT called when they couldn't figure it out."
The moral of the story: MIT is marketing machine. As a rule, they are over-ranked in nearly every category, and rely on a historical perspective rather than a current one.
Well, actually... Let me provide a little insight. My daughter, a future engineer, has dropped MIT from her top choice to off the list. There are many schools that are nearly as good, and despite rankings, better than MIT.
Here's another cool little anecdote: I was in a meeting with director from NIST, along with another researcher and our director. He was in town to give a lecture as part of a regular lecture series we conduct through the school year, and I was meeting with him one-on-one to ask questions about the intersection of IT and power grid operations. He was relaying a story about some engineering project that they had asked MIT researchers for help on.
Suddenly our director burst out laughing. Said he couldn't contain it anymore. He says, "Yeah, we know about that project. We're the people MIT called when they couldn't figure it out."
The moral of the story: MIT is marketing machine. As a rule, they are over-ranked in nearly every category, and rely on a historical perspective rather than a current one.
I wouldn't say some researchers handing off a project warrants a broad panning of the school and the thousands of people that make it up...
Donations matter, I hope. But I don't know how many regularly-donating alumni will follow through on their pledge not to give until this case is resolved, and proper action is taken.
It's hard to do, and it feels lousy. The alumni who feel closest to this case are probably people who spent a lot of time making stuff. When they donate, they're more likely to target their money at helping other people make stuff, by donating to things like the Edgerton Center [1], MITERS [2], or SIPB [3], or even just giving money directly to dorm governments (my hall had a PIC burner sitting next to the toaster on our kitchen counter and a couple of oscilloscopes you could check out from the front desk, courtesy of some slush fund somewhere).
When these alumni donate, they're not doing it to get their name on a plaque, or out of some kind of broad-based affinity for the school, they're doing it to help current students have the same kind of experiences they were able to enjoy. And if they stop donating, it's pretty easy to see the culture of creation suffering. People will keep making stuff, but it'll be a little more difficult, require a little more dedication, and it'll wind up being fewer people. That's a significant price to pay to stand on a principle.
[1] http://web.mit.edu/edgerton/ [2] http://miters.mit.edu/ [3] http://sipb.mit.edu/
It's hard to do, and it feels lousy. The alumni who feel closest to this case are probably people who spent a lot of time making stuff. When they donate, they're more likely to target their money at helping other people make stuff, by donating to things like the Edgerton Center [1], MITERS [2], or SIPB [3], or even just giving money directly to dorm governments (my hall had a PIC burner sitting next to the toaster on our kitchen counter and a couple of oscilloscopes you could check out from the front desk, courtesy of some slush fund somewhere).
When these alumni donate, they're not doing it to get their name on a plaque, or out of some kind of broad-based affinity for the school, they're doing it to help current students have the same kind of experiences they were able to enjoy. And if they stop donating, it's pretty easy to see the culture of creation suffering. People will keep making stuff, but it'll be a little more difficult, require a little more dedication, and it'll wind up being fewer people. That's a significant price to pay to stand on a principle.
[1] http://web.mit.edu/edgerton/ [2] http://miters.mit.edu/ [3] http://sipb.mit.edu/
Couldn't they donate elsewhere and have pretty close to the same affect? I assume that your choice to donate specifically to your school instead of another has something to do with your feelings for the school.
Yeah, I always donate to EC, they're not the ones that are responsible for this kind of crap :-/
But MIT didn't get where it is by being careless about its public image. Association with that image is a nonzero part of the value of a degree from MIT. If they go about acting like bozos it affects current and future students as well as alumni.
MIT got where it is by being a crucial instrument of the military industrial complex, in many years the largest non-profit defense contractor in the country. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
Eh, I think you have to separate the students and faculty from the admins. I don't think many MIT students have ever been proud to be associated with the admins, because they do boneheaded things pretty regularly.
The way the administration threw Star Simpson under the bus within hours of her arrest was despicable.
Did they? I graduated the year before that whole debacle, so I didn't get a very good sense of what happened beyond what was going on on one of the dorm mailing lists. I wouldn't be very surprised, though.
Does anyone have the breakdown of MIT's total funding from: (i) tuition, (ii) alumni donations, (iii) endowment distributions, (iv) government contracts, grants, etc., and, (v) non-alumni non-governmental sources (other)?
It seems they raise tens of millions from donations each year.[1] Given the calibre, and number, of speakers at Aaron Swartz's public eulogy who made some very pointed comments about the political dimensions of the case beyond their praise for Aaron's life I imagine there is potential for the issue to affect donations.
[1] http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2013/03/08/mit-ranks-11...
[1] http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2013/03/08/mit-ranks-11...
Can anyone answer this: wouldn't this information have been forced to be public as part of any successful criminal trial?
Wasn't MIT's network setup directly at issue?
Wasn't MIT's network setup directly at issue?
Evidence introduced at trial, yes. Investigative materials and whatnot used to put the case together, things not directly used as evidence... perhaps not.
Nope. Certain elements of evidence are routinely kept secret from the public at trials and may be kept under judicial seal.
The actual case docket is here:
http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=2489830
http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=2489830
[deleted]
Are all organisations lately competing in some limbo tournament? How low can you set the bar and still move below it?
There is no point of saving the face if it makes you look like an ass ...
There is no point of saving the face if it makes you look like an ass ...
If the NSA cant keep a secret...
This case is so profoundly sad.
Very sad.
It is interesting that they have never heard of third party's intervening in FOIA cases because it actually is a common occurrence in academia.
Many times, a professor at another university will file a FOIA request for your grant application. If you feel your research plans are threatened by having the details of your grant passed along to this other professor, your university will intervene on your behalf in the FOIA request. This is especially true if there is patentable material in the grant that they fear will be threatened by wide dissemination of the contents of the grant. Even if they fail in blocking the FOIA request, they usually can at least delay the release long enough to file a preliminary patent on the material described in the grant application.
I can understand reporters not having heard of this tactic, but I'm surprised an expert FOIA litigator would be unfamiliar with these cases.