Headline: MIT faulted over its support for students
Caption under picture: Critics say MIT also should have intervened in the case of Aaron Swartz.
Swartz was never a student at MIT.
Caption under picture: Critics say MIT also should have intervened in the case of Aaron Swartz.
Swartz was never a student at MIT.
- the MBTA "hackers", 2008: http://www.openmediaboston.org/content/mbta-suit-against-mit...
- Star Simpson, 2007: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2...
- Ryan McKinley's "Government Information Awareness", 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Information_Awarene...
- Andrew "Bunnie" Huang, 2002, XBox hacker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Huang
- Ladyada, 2002: http://www.ladyada.net/pub/research.html
- David LaMacchia, 1994: http://cd.textfiles.com/group42/WAREZ/LAMACCHI.HTM
And these are only a few cases that made headlines; there are many additional controversies handled more quietly. The point remains that the MIT General Counsel's office exists to protect the institute, not the students, even while MIT's culture rewards innovative, boundary-pushing work.
The point at issue here is that MIT needs a legal support structure for such students commensurate with its encouragement of the work.
Defending a student from feds means risking their careers since they only got these positions through political connections. All of them go on to the Dept of Foreign Affairs or some other government appointed position. This is just a stepping stone for them, who cares about students.
But he represented values for which the MIT stands in its self-characterisation.