News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz. Parent comment

Re:The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz by mitmatt on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @09:12PM (#6131240)
If by "objected to FOIA requests" you mean "filed a motion, just like JSTOR, proposing the ability review and suggest redactions to the requested documents over a window of five days for the explicit purpose of ensuring the privacy and safety of its employees, especially in light of the threatening communications it has received". MIT never proposed preventing the documents from being released.

http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N29/swartz/MIT-motion.pdf http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N29/swartz.html

But based on your comments in the other threads, I'm not sure you're interested in the actual facts...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz by chaostheory on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @09:21PM (#6131271)
> MIT never proposed preventing the documents from being released. I'm not sure you're interested in the actual facts

Ok they blocked and prevented FOIA access to documents until Aug 23. What I posted wasn't inaccurate. If what I posted before weren't facts, maybe you should dispute them instead just making one generalized statement. I've been wrong before, and I don't mind being proven wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]