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 pdonis on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @09:18PM (#6131258)
since MIT initiated the proceedings I wouldn't call that neutral either.

MIT initiated a process to find out who the laptop they found belonged to. MIT did not initiate any legal proceedings, and did not tell anyone that they were in favor of doing so.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz by chaostheory on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @11:16AM (#6134300)
Combined with Jstor's actions, MIT could have stopped this circus at anytime. They didn't.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz by pdonis on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @11:41AM (#6134533)
MIT could have stopped this circus at anytime.

The report gives plenty of evidence that doesn't support that contention. It looks to me like the prosecution didn't care what MIT or JSTOR thought.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz by chaostheory on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @02:27PM (#6135841)
Yes but it would probably weaken the prosecution's case at the very least.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz by pdonis on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @04:20PM (#6136568)
it would probably weaken the prosecution's case at the very least

I can see one thing that would have weakened the prosecution's case: if MIT had been able to say definitely that Swartz's access to the MIT network was authorized. However, I'm not sure MIT could have said that definitely.

[ Parent | on HN ]