Re:Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
by pdonis on Thursday January 02, 2014 @11:57PM
(#7004232)
why did MIT turn over information without being subpoenaed for it?
Because they didn't know what was going on and needed help to figure it out. It's all laid out in the Abelson report.
If you're looking for a key juncture at which MIT made a mistake, I would ask why they didn't make a statement similar to the one JSTOR made after the civil settlement: basically saying "we're satisfied that this is resolved and don't have any interest in further legal actions being taken". (I'm not sure this would actually have stopped the prosecutors, since they seemed bound and determined to "get" Swartz no matter what, but at least it would have been something.)
Because they didn't know what was going on and needed help to figure it out. It's all laid out in the Abelson report.
If you're looking for a key juncture at which MIT made a mistake, I would ask why they didn't make a statement similar to the one JSTOR made after the civil settlement: basically saying "we're satisfied that this is resolved and don't have any interest in further legal actions being taken". (I'm not sure this would actually have stopped the prosecutors, since they seemed bound and determined to "get" Swartz no matter what, but at least it would have been something.)