If you'd like MIT students who were impacted by the administration's callous lack of support, consider:

- 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.