There are two pieces here: How the legal system behaved, and how MIT behaved. What you're saying makes 100% sense for an aggressive prosecutor. On the other hand, MIT was behaving in a way which was pure evil.

To go back to the Robinhood analogy, I would expect the Sheriff of Nottingham to go after Robinhood with perfect dedication -- that's his job. On the other hand, if Friar Tuck made it his life's work to go after Robinhood, that'd be a different story.

I don't totally understand why there's so much hate on MIT for this, so consider this more of an inquiry rather than an outright defense of what happened and let me know if I'm missing something critical:

Based on what I know, Aaron Swartz - someone with no affiliation to MIT - abused MIT's open campus/network policies and tried to download all of JSTOR by hiding a laptop in a closet. At best, this is at least something sketchy to do by someone with no connection to the university. MIT discovered this, turned the matters over to the police, Swartz got caught, and the (overzealous) prosecutors took it from there. MIT did not "make it [its] life's work to go after [Swartz]". You can certainly criticize it for not trying to help him, especially given MIT's hacker-friendly culture and the fact that his actions did not hurt anyone, but I think it's unfair to have expected MIT to make a stand against the prosecutor/criminal justice system and predicted Swartz's suicide, after he rejected the 6 month minimum-security prison deal and decided to go to trial instead.

I'm all for open access, but Swartz's methods were at least a bit questionable and he should have expected some repercussions should he get caught (I'm sure he did, hence the hiding of the laptop). And in the end, blaming MIT for being neutral in a politically-charged case and for Swartz's death seems unfair, it is an academic and research institution after all, not a public defender.

A few corrections:

1) Saying Aaron had no affiliation to MIT does not reflect the reality of the situation. MIT, at the time, had an open door policy. There were a lot of people who hung out at MIT -- accepted, participating, contributing members of the MIT community (often actively participating in running MIT classes or doing MIT research), who just happened to not be in a formal role (student, faculty, etc.). MIT has clamped down on that since, but it's a lot of what made MIT awesome in its heyday. The reason the MIT community was so offended by the MIT administration is because it was an attack by the administration on a member of the community.

2) Saying MIT took a neutral role is also false. JSTOR took a neutral role. MIT actively pressed charges.

3) As unreasonable as Swartz' actions seem in 2020 mainstream culture, they were not out-of-line with MIT culture of the time. People were encouraged to actively pushed boundaries, and property was a bit more communal. As an undergrad, I might go into a lab I had no affiliation with, and use equipment to build something. I wouldn't do that if it was indicated that wasn't okay, but for the most part, there was an expectation that if the Institute had a classroom no one was using, you could use it to run a community activity. If there was a lab with equipment you needed, unless there was a sign posted to the contrary, then you should just made sure you left it better than when you found it (and if it was something like a bandsaw, had the safety training you needed). I was trained on equipment in a several labs I had no formal affiliation with, and regularly used them for personal projects. This was 100% okay and everyone knew about this.

4) I don't have any reason to believe Swartz hid a laptop in a closet. He left a laptop in a closet. There were some things he did -- like spoofing IPs -- which were less transparent. But there were plenty of times I'd left equipment connected to random places on the MIT network for long-running network operations, never nefariously. It's an unlocked closet with an ethernet drop. No one in the community would think twice about using it for e.g. a large download overnight.

A lot of these things would not be done in 2020 MIT. Not a million years. The administration's handling of Swartz was part of this culture change, and a lot of MIT's soul died in the process. It has had a continuing chilling effect on the culture of the MIT community. What's really evil is that the MIT administration continues to uses Swartz as an example to intimidate community members into compliance with what it wants them to toe the line.

> an attack by the administration on a member of the community

Prosecuting someone for breaking into your network and using it for illegal activities is attacking them?

> What's really evil is

Every time I see someone use the word evil in a debate, I just ignore everything else they say, because there's no rationalizing with emotions. "Evilness" is subjective, which is why we have laws. I tend to stick to the laws and not demonize people for doing things that were according to it, since if it were truly evil the people would at least demand the law be changed.

If we all really cared enough about open access journals, there would be a world-wide boycott of science education until a national law was passed blocking all public funding to anything but open access. But that's not going to happen, and we all know why: it's not evil enough for us to drop everything and use collective action, but we still want to pose it as evil because we're really angry, and we're really angry because we don't know enough about how it all works to find a better solution.

> Prosecuting someone for breaking into your network and using it for illegal activities is attacking them?

It depends on where you draw the boundaries between "yours" and "ours." My family can walk into my closet. A stranger can't. From the perspective of most of the MIT community, Aaron didn't break into the MIT network. He had both legal and moral access to use it, and he did that like many other community members. People plug things into MIT network jacks all the time. I did that too. I never hid that I did that, and no one thought I was breaking, stealing, or doing anything else wrong. I saw others do likewise. It's how the place worked at the time.

He did bypass protections on JSTOR's systems. If someone had grounds to press charges, it was JSTOR, not MIT.

> Every time I see someone use the word evil in a debate, I just ignore everything else they say, because there's no rationalizing with emotions. "Evilness" is subjective, which is why we have laws. I tend to stick to the laws and not demonize people for doing things that were according to it, since if it were truly evil the people would at least demand the law be changed.

That's a very culturally narrow point of view. It places you as being mostly likely of either of Western European descent or Japanese, but there are a few more cultures which define morality in terms of following the law. I think this is the point at which you check out from the conversation -- most monocultural people get very uncomfortable with foreign things, but:

That worldview completely breaks down when Hitler makes it a crime to kill Jews, you have BLM protests in the US, or democracy protests in Honk Kong. It breaks down in more subtle ways across the board.

And yes, people did push for change. Aaron's Law was almost passed, but ultimately, it was blocked by Oracle. Oracle is a pretty evil corporation too, although for the most part, it does a good job following the laws. That's your queue to check out, I guess.

But the point is that the laws are at least as subjective and arbitrary as people's cultural biases about what constitutes good and bad. If you want more rational opinions of good versus evil, you can start with utilitarianism and other philosophies of morality.

Thanks for taking the time to write this. A few questions/comments on your points:

1) Ok, from that perspective Aaron Swartz was part of the MIT community, but I don't agree that his case "was an attack by the administration on a member of the community". MIT did not speak against (or in support of) Swartz, did not press charges, told the prosecution it should not think MIT wanted a jail sentence for Swartz, and really was not involved in the trial. As I said before, you can definitely criticize MIT for not actively supporting Swartz, but I get the sense that people think MIT was out there encouraging the prosecution and pushing for some severe punishment, which it was not.

2) MIT did not press charges, MIT called the police. I just took a look at the Abelson report and it in fact states multiple times that MIT did not press charges, although it also points out that MIT was not opposed to charges. I would call that being neutral. I believe the report is fairly objective in its fact-reporting, but of course we have to acknowledge that it comes from MIT itself, so please let me know if you think Abelson/the administration is outright lying when they say they did not press charges.

3) I agree that people at MIT are/were actively encouraged to push boundaries, and that MIT resources were for everyone in the community to use, although your description of using random lab equipment does strike me as a bit odd. Granted, I was not part of the makers community, but while I had friends who actively used the hobby shop for personal projects, I never heard of anyone just going into random labs while people weren't there to play around with equipment and build something. Not saying it's wrong, just wondering how common this actually is at MIT.

4) Maybe he just left a laptop in a closet, but I would argue Swartz had at least some idea he was doing something questionable - I'm not saying something illegal or even wrong - but somewhat inappropriate. When he was caught near Central Square, the MIT PD officer identified himself and said he wanted to speak with him, after which Swartz dropped his bike and started running away. If I'm a member of the MIT community working on a project while connected to the MIT network, I don't drop my stuff and run away when MIT PD approach me asking to speak with me if I don't think I'm doing anything wrong.

I agree that the culture at MIT has changed over the past decade (in mostly a negative way), in large part because of the administration, but in this specific instance I feel like MIT is getting more hate than it should.

    What's really evil is that the MIT administration continues to uses Swartz as an example to intimidate community members into compliance with what it wants them to toe the line.

Do you have any sources for this? I haven't heard of it, but if that is the case, that's a pretty shitty thing to do

1/2) I stand corrected. I will reread about what happened.

To answer your questions, though: In the generic case, the MIT administration lies or at the very least badly misleads in these reports (see the Epstein report, for example). In this specific case, MIT chose Abelson to author the report precisely since he has unimpeachable integrity. I'd trust whatever he signed his name to, as would everyone else in the MIT community.

3) It sort of depends. I wouldn't e.g. walk into a random biology lab where I knew no one, and no one knew me, in the middle of the night and use a centrifuge. On the other hand:

* There were plenty of times when I walked into 38-501 lab, which was a big undergraduate EE lab, and made things, even long after I graduated (and other alumni did too), waving "hi" to the desk workers if they were around (who knew me and knew I had no affiliation). It was pretty normal. And I think that extended to any member of the MIT community. Cheap things like resistors were also free. More expensive things, unaffiliated people were respectful of (indeed, more respectful than the people managing the lab expected them to be).

* I used a few machine shops around MIT, where I was safety trained by the staff but had no formal affiliation with the shop or lab. I'd walk into these and use them casually. When the people who managed these came in, we'd usually have a friendly chat about what I was making.

* There was one makerspace in the Media Lab where I used equipment regularly without asking. I knew the prof in whose jurisdiction it was, and it was sort of symbiotic. I reverse-engineered a lot of his equipment in the process, which was useful to his research group. There were plenty of hanger-ons too, doing likewise.

* Institute-wide communal resources, like classrooms or network drops, you'd just use. You definitely didn't ask anyone. I can't imagine I'd think twice about leaving a laptop connected (except for having it stolen; theft was not uncommon). Indeed, I'd likely look for a place like a network closet where it wouldn't be as likely to be casually stolen.

And there were plenty of places which were restricted-use. For example, Edgerton shop made it clear it could only be used for specific uses. I didn't use that one. You got a feel for the specific lab.

That's actually a lot of what made MIT great. If you wanted to make something (virtually anything) you had the resources at your disposal to do it. I learned a lot from more experienced people who were hanging out making things when I was an undergrad, and I think undergrads learned a lot from me once I was an alumnus.

To be clear, that culture is dead now. I couldn't go to MIT and use a machine shop or EE lab right now, at least without paying an annual alumni membership fee.

And to be clear, there were people doing the same who weren't alumni too, but who were accepted as members of the community.

4) re: Using Swartz as an example: I can say that happens with 100% certainty, but these things wind up under NDA, so I don't know of public sources.

re: Doing something wrong: I don't disagree he knew he was doing something sketchy, but it comes back to who the victim is. It was JSTOR, not MIT.

> On the other hand, MIT was behaving in a way which was pure evil.

And they then proceeded to whitewash it, adding insult to injury.

It's a shame that our expectations for prosecutors are so low.

(to be clear, I share them. But, it's a shame)

The current copyright regime is too strict. As someone else pointed out JSTOR went open access without much ado. So basically the whole thing led to the death of some dude because he dared to show how much what he did did not really matter. It's not like universities just stopped paying for access because there's SciHub. And it's not like academics stopped paying journals for publishing because old stuff is open access.