Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpdoctor | Hacker News Reader

I've posted this elsewhere: Who exactly refused?

MIT is a collection of many people. I spent 14 years as undergrad/working/grad there, and I'm wondering how this went down. (I knew both Vest and Rief, not Hockfield, but I find it hard to believe this issue made it anywhere near their desks. I would have guessed some clown in the library system, but frankly that doesn't make sense either.)

Any insiders know?

View on HN

MIT is doing an investigation (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/letter-on-death-of-aaron-...). Presumably the outcome of that will be these kinds of details.

It's looking to be a hard time for those responsible, to be honest. If the HN crowd is up in arms, there are probably many at MIT wanting to see retribution, and likely have the clout to see it happen.

> and likely have the clout to see it happen.

Hal Abelson is respected enough that even I will be curious to see his result.

I'm up in arms about the prosecution and suicide, but Hal is one of the few people I trust wholeheartedly to tell the truth about MIT's involvement. So much so that if he came to a conclusion "It was an oops, a piece of paper got misplaced and no one at MIT's at any fault," I'd accept it without a second thought.

I think you just gave them an out.

I hold dr. Abelson in the highest regard but if that were his conclusion I think that might change. Such a conclusion would indicate sloppy work, a single misplaced piece of paper could not have had these consequences within an organization such as MIT. For want of a horseshoe the kingdom was lost, but this is not the 14th century and enough people knew about this case that I highly doubt a single piece of paper could have had that effect.

I know what scarmig means: I believe Hal would resign before putting out falsehoods or a whitewash.

Also, I don't consider it "them" so much as "us". I may have been a mere cog, but still love the place 15 years later.

> I believe Hal would resign before putting out falsehoods or a whitewash.

I believe so too. But that particular example wasn't very good.

The point was that, no matter how apparently ridiculous the conclusion, scarmig would accept it without question because the source was that credible. The more exaggerated the hypothesized conclusion, the more strongly that point was made.

I believe that scarmig's example very clearly stated his position.

I would bet large sums of money that I do not actually have that the conclusion we get will nowhere near that ridiculous. I would bet reasonably large sums of money that Abelson will prove not corruptible on this issue.

Aaron's father met with the chancellor on two separate occasions, so I think that losing a piece of paper is not likely to be the outcome.

I think you make an important point that needs to be realized. MIT, like many other large institutions, is not a single entity, but a collection of many people. While many people have expressed their disappointment with MIT, along with statements such as "How could the university that hired rtm do this to swartz", we have to see that MIT is a big place with many people running different parts of it! While disappointment towards MIT and sadness over Swartz's death is certainly understandable/warranted, we should wait for Abelson's report before we heap scorn, jump to conclusions, and find something to throw on the stake.

I don't think that's entirely reasonable.

When good things happen in "collections of many people", the leaders and the institution take plenty of credit. When bad things happen, the same should apply. And more so, really.

The university is a big place, but that doesn't mean that we can't heap scorn on things they have apparently done.

Of course leadership always bears responsibility to some degree, but remember the MIT you think of when there is great research going on (the professors, researching students, etc.) is also generally the MIT that is supportive of hacker culture, OCW, open access to the buildings, etc.

I doubt that anyone in MIT's library system would have the authority to determine the university's actions in a legal case. These kinds of decisions are probably made at the highest levels: by the president, the board of trustees, and their lawyers.

> These kinds of decisions are probably made at the highest levels: by the president, the board of trustees

Not a place like MIT. The vast majority of their time is spent in money-land. Usually, they are on the fundraising side, lots of grip and grin. Some policy. Not minutiae, and some kid wiring up a closet is under minutiae.

> their lawyers.

Never seen a situation there where the lawyers did anything unless being told. So that is my question: Who told them?

I wouldn't consider a high-profile federal legal case that could (and probably did) reflect very badly on the university to be "minutiae".

The university's general counsel and other lawyers are paid to give legal advice to the university. Why would it be so strange for MIT's president to have taken their advice?

Look, you might be right. Perhaps someone put this on Pres Hockfield's desk along with everything else and she said "We need to make an example of this kid, or the university donations will suffer." or "the university will look weak" or even "the university will look bad to the JSTOR community"

But when put next to: "Who are we going to squeeze for $100M dollars to get the latest bio building", or "How do we get more people interested in STEM at a young age?" usually that stuff is under the category of "What do I have to do to get this off my desk and never see it again?"

BTW: I agree with you that if the library gnomes (or their superiors) were the ones holding the grudge, they would not have the power to do anything, as I mentioned above.

If this was a calculated gamble, then I think it misfired.

If Ableson confirms what this article alleges, no hacker with a shred of humanity would attend MIT.

Was told by MIT's postmaster that half of MIT's Internet budget went to lawyers, for all the times that someone would see something an MIT student posted on the Internet and shout "I'm gonna sue!" Bonzai Kitten kept them more than a little busy for a while.

I don't know the details, but at any institution that large it would be an administrative dean of some kind, or the principal counsel for the university.

Insider here. Almost all legal representation and interactions of the Institute flows through the Office of General Council.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com