DOCSLIB.ORG

Report to the President: MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report to the President: MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz Report to the President MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz Review Panel Harold Abelson Peter A. Diamond Andrew Grosso Douglas W. Pfeiffer (support) July 26, 2013 © Copyright 2013, Massachusetts Institute of Technology This worK is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. PRESIDENT REIF’S CHARGE TO HAL ABELSON | iii L. Rafael Reif, President 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 3-208 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 U.S.A. Phone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iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PRESIDENT REIF’S CHARGE TO HAL ABELSON (LETTER) ............................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 11 PART I: EVENTS LEADING TO THE ARREST ................................................................................ 16 I.A Downloading of JSTOR Articles .......................................................................... 16 I.B Discovery of the Laptop ...................................................................................... 20 I.C Events of January 6, 2011: The Arrest ................................................................ 24 I.D Events of January 6, 2011: Seizure of the Laptop .............................................. 25 I.E Access to the MIT Network ................................................................................ 26 I.E.1 Connecting to the MIT networK ............................................................... 26 I.E.2 JSTOR and eControl .................................................................................. 27 PART II: BACKGROUND ON AARON SWARTZ AND LEGAL EVENTS FOLLOWING THE ARREST .............................................................................................. 29 II.A Background on Aaron Swartz ............................................................................. 29 II.A.1 Aaron Swartz in Cambridge .................................................................... 30 II.A.2 Possible motives for downloading .......................................................... 31 II.B The Prosecutions and the Legal Defense: An Overview .................................... 34 II.B.1 The state prosecution ............................................................................. 35 II.B.2 The federal prosecution .......................................................................... 36 II.B.3 Plea discussions during the federal prosecution .................................... 38 II.B.4 Motions to suppress ............................................................................... 41 II.C Aaron Swartz’s Settlement with JSTOR ............................................................. 41 PART III: MIT’S RESPONSE TO THE PROSECUTION (JANUARY 2011–JANUARY 2013) ............... 44 III.A Events between the Arrest and the Indictment (January 2011–July 2011) ...... 48 III.A.1 MIT provides information to the USAO (January 2011–April 2011) ....... 49 III.A.2 MIT is informed about the prosecution (March 2011–June 2011) ........ 51 III.A.3 MIT adopts and maintains a posture of neutrality ................................. 52 III.A.4 MIT discusses possible public statements with JSTOR (June 2011) ....... 56 CONTENTS | v III.B Events around the Time of the Indictment (April 2011–September 2011) ....... 58 III.B.1 Early overtures to MIT in support of Aaron Swartz (April 2011–June 2011) .......................................................................... 59 III.B.2 The indictment: Unauthorized access .................................................... 60 III.B.3 MIT as “victim” ....................................................................................... 62 III.B.4 Robert Swartz meets with MIT’s Chancellor .......................................... 62 III.C MIT’s Contacts with Prosecution and Defense (October 2011–September 2012) ....................................................................... 64 III.C.1 Responses to defense inquiries are slow (May 2012–August 2012) ...... 64 III.C.2 Robert Swartz writes to MIT’s President ................................................ 66 III.C.3 MIT’s outside counsel speaKs with the lead prosecutor (August 9, 2012) ..................................................................................... 67 III.C.4 Robert Swartz meets again with MIT (September 2012) ....................... 69 III.C.5 Other contacts on behalf of Aaron Swartz ............................................. 70 III.D Events in Anticipation of Trial (August 2012–October 2012) ............................ 72 III.D.1 The defense asKs MIT to oppose jail time (September 2012–October 2012) .......................................................... 73 III.D.2 The defense moves to suppress evidence (October 2012) .................... 74 III.D.3 Effect of the suppression motions (October 2012–December 2012) .... 76 III.D.4 Final weeks (December 2012–January 2013) ......................................... 77 PART IV: DECISION POINTS FOR MIT ........................................................................................... 80 IV.A The Investigation and the Immediate Post-arrest Period ................................. 81 IV.A.1 Locating the laptop and performing a packet scan ................................ 81 IV.A.2 Informing the MIT Police and notifying the Cambridge Police ............... 82 IV.A.3 Providing information to law enforcement pre-subpoena .................... 82 IV.B Neutrality: Issuing Statements; Providing Information to Prosecution and Defense ................................................................................... 83 IV.B.1 Issuing public statements about whether to prosecute ......................... 84 IV.B.2 Issuing public statements about the criminal charges ........................... 85 IV.B.3 MaKing private statements to the prosecution about the criminal charges ..................................................................................... 85 IV.B.4 Providing prosecution and defense with documents and access to MIT employees ....................................................................... 86 IV.B.5 Taking non-neutral positions for people with MIT associations ............ 87 CONTENTS | vi IV.B.6 Becoming more informed about the charges ........................................ 87 IV.B.7 Engaging more deeply with issues around the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ........................................................................................ 88 PART V: QUESTIONS FOR THE MIT COMMUNITY ...................................................................... 89 Question 1: Should MIT develop additional on-campus expertise for handling potential computer crime incidents, thus giving the Institute more flexibility in formulating its responses? ............................................................................................ 90 Question 2: Should MIT policies on the collection, provision, and retention of electronic records be reviewed? ...................................... 92 Question 3: Should an MIT education address the personal ethics and legal obligations of technology empowerment? ........................... 92 Question 4: Should MIT increase its efforts to bring its considerable technical expertise and leadership to bear on the study of legal, policy, and societal impact of information and communications technology? ............................................................... 93 Question 5: What are MIT’s institutional interests in the debate over reforming the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? ................................... 94 Question 6: Should MIT strengthen its activities in support of open access to scholarly publications? .......................................................... 95 Question 7: What are
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title A Web of Extended Metaphors in the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto of Aaron Swartz Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6w76f8x7 Author Swift, Kathy Publication Date 2017 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara A Web of Extended Metaphors in the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto of Aaron Swartz A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Education by Kathleen Anne Swift Committee in charge: Professor Richard Duran, Chair Professor Diana Arya Professor William Robinson September 2017 The dissertation of Kathleen Anne Swift is approved. ................................................................................................................................ Diana Arya ................................................................................................................................ William Robinson ................................................................................................................................ Richard Duran, Committee Chair June 2017 A Web of Extended Metaphors in the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto of Aaron Swartz Copyright © 2017 by Kathleen Anne Swift iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee for their advice and patience as I worked on gathering and analyzing the copious amounts of research necessary to
    [Show full text]
  • Genius and the Soil
    Genius and the soil DIGITAL COMMONS DIGITAL State and corporate interests have sought to crack talk in terms of protecting the interests of innovative individuals: authors, down on the power to share information digitally. But musicians, and scholars. To give just one could the new technologies point towards a more example, the Motion Picture Association of America, supported by some of the democratic model of creativity, asks JONATHAN GRAY biggest players in the film industry – Disney, Paramount, Sony, 20th Century ho can share what on from the 18th and 19th centuries. Reacting Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers – the internet? There is an against models of literary and artistic claims to pursue ‘commonsense solutions’ increasing awareness of creation that privileged imitation of the that ‘[protect] the rights of all who make debates around protected classics and striving towards perfection something of value with their minds, their material being shared within an established tradition, this period passion and their unique creative vision’. online through high profile court cases and saw a general turn towards the individual This notion of the individual controversies in the news, through things genius who broke previous rules and innovator, the lone pioneer breaking rules like the Pirate Bay, Wikileaks, or the recent invented new ones. Through this new and creating new paradigms, is only one tragic case of Aaron Swartz (see box, right). aesthetic frame, the world was divided side of the romantic story about literary But, stepping back from questions around into visionary and rebellious pioneers and creativity. The other side (perhaps less the law and its implementation in these slavish imitators.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Rights Management and the Process of Fair Use Timothy K
    University of Cincinnati College of Law University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications Faculty Articles and Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2006 Digital Rights Management and the Process of Fair Use Timothy K. Armstrong University of Cincinnati College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Armstrong, Timothy K., "Digital Rights Management and the Process of Fair Use" (2006). Faculty Articles and Other Publications. Paper 146. http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs/146 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles and Other Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Harvard Journal ofLaw & Technology Volume 20, Number 1 Fall 2006 DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT AND THE PROCESS OF FAIR USE Timothy K. Armstrong* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: LEGAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTIONS FOR FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS ........................................ 50 II. COPYRIGHT LAW AND/OR DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT .......... 56 A. Traditional Copyright: The Normative Baseline ........................ 56 B. Contemporary Copyright: DRM as a "Speedbump" to Slow Mass Infringement ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Armenian Cause in America Today
    THE ARMENIAN CAUSE IN AMERICA TODAY While meager Turkish American NGO assets are dedicated to cultural events and providing education on a wide range of political issues, approximately $40 million in Armenian American NGO assets are primarily dedicated to what is referred to in Armenian as Hai Tahd, ‘The Armenian Cause’. Hai Tahd includes three policy objectives: Recognition that the 1885-1919 Armenian tragedy constitutes genocide; Reparations from Turkey; and, Restitution of the eastern provinces of Turkey to Armenia. This paper examines the Armenian American strategy and the response of Turkish American via the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA). Günay Evinch Gunay Evinch (Övünç) practices international public law at Saltzman & Evinch and serves as Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA) Vice-President for the Capital Region. He researched the Armenian case in Turkey as a U.S. Congressional Fulbright Scholar and Japan Sasakawa Peace Foundation Scholar in international law in 1991-93. To view media coverage and photographs associated with this article, please see, Günay Evinch, “The Armenian Cause Today,” The Turkish American, Vol. 2, No. 8 (Summer 2005), pp. 22-29. Also viewable at www.ATAA.org The Ottoman Armenian tragedy of 1880-1919 is a dark episode in the history of Turkish and Armenian relations. Over one million Muslims, mostly Kurds, Turks, and Arabs, and almost 600,000 Armenians perished in eastern Anatolia alone. WWI took the lives of 10 million combatants and 50 million civilians. While Russia suffered the greatest population deficit, the Ottoman Empire lost over five million, of which nearly 4 million were Muslims, 600,000 were Armenian, 300,000 were Greek, and 100,000 were Ottoman Jews.1 Moreover, the millennial Armenian presence in eastern Anatolia ended.
    [Show full text]
  • RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths About Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It
    RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it: November 16, 2012 RSC Staff Contact: Derek S. Khanna, [email protected], (202) 226-0718 This paper will analyze current US Copyright Law by examining three myths on copyright law and possible reforms to copyright law that will lead to more economic development for the private sector and to a copyright law that is more firmly based upon constitutional principles. 1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content: It’s a common misperception that the Constitution enables our current legal regime of copyright protection – in fact, it does not. The Constitution’s clause on Copyright and patents states: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” In today’s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation. This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators “deserve” or are “entitled to” by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL RULES Salt Lake City, UT October 18, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA ...................................................................................................................................... 5 TAB 1 OPENING BUSINESS A. Draft Minutes of April 2013 Criminal Rules Meeting ....................... 19 B. Draft Minutes of June 2013 Standing Committee Meeting............... 37 TAB 2 AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL RULES UNDER CONSIDERATION A. Proposed Amendments Approved by the Supreme Court & Submitted to Congress Rule 11. Pleas........................................................................................ 81 B. Proposed Amendments Approved by the Judicial Conference & Transmitted to the Supreme Court Rule 5. Initial Appearance .................................................................. 87 Rule 6. The Grand Jury ...................................................................... 91 Rule 12. Pleadings & Pretrial Motions .............................................. 95 Rule 34. Arresting Judgment ............................................................ 107 Rule 58. Petty Offenses & Other Misdemeanors ............................ 109 TAB 3 PROPOSAL TO AMEND RULE 4 A. Reporters’ Memorandum Regarding Rule 4 (September 24, 2013) .......................................................................... 117 B. Proposed Amended Rule 4 (with style changes) ............................... 129 C. Proposed Amended Rule 4 (without style changes) ......................... 135 D. Letter to Judge
    [Show full text]
  • Carl Declaration 20160514.Pages
    Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 29-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 21 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 29-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) CODE REVISION COMMISSION ) on Behalf of and For the Benefit of the ) CIVIL ACTION GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA, ) NO. 1:15-cv-2594-MHC and the STATE OF GEORGIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) DECLARATION OF CARL MALAMUD IN SUPPORT OF PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I, Carl Malamud, declare as follows: 1. I am the founder of Public.Resource.Org ("Public Resource”). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and know them to be true and correct. I could competently testify to them if called as a witness. Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 29-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 21 2. I wish to explain why I purchased, scanned, and posted on the Internet the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. 3. As plaintiffs have mentioned that my name was considered for appointment as Public Printer of the United States and that President Obama did not appoint me to that position, I will explain the circumstances. 4. From 2005-2006, I served as Chief Technology Officer to John D. Podesta, the President and CEO of the non-profit research organization, the Center for American Progress (“CAP”). Although my main job was to help the institution and its people use technology effectively, John encouraged me to undertake initiatives around national technology policy.
    [Show full text]
  • It Is NOT Junk a Blog About Genomes, DNA, Evolution, Open Science, Baseball and Other Important Things
    it is NOT junk a blog about genomes, DNA, evolution, open science, baseball and other important things The Past, Present and Future of Scholarly Publishing By MIC H A EL EISEN | Published: MA RC H 2 8 , 2 0 1 3 Search To search, type and hit enter I gave a talk last night at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco about science publishing and PLoS. There will be an audio link soon, but, for the first time in my life, Michael Eisen I actually gave the talk (largely) from prepared remarks, so I thought I’d post it here. I'm a biologist at UC An audio recording of the talk with Q&A is available here. Berkeley and an Investigator of the —— Howard Hughes Medical Institute. I work primarily On January 6, 2011, 24 year old hacker and activist Aaron Swartz was arrested by on flies, and my research encompases police at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for downloading several million evolution, development, genetics, articles from an online archive of research journals called JSTOR. genomics, chemical ecology and behavior. I am a strong proponent of After Swartz committed suicide earlier this year in the face of legal troubles arising open science, and a co-founder of the from this incident, questions were raised about why MIT, whose access to JSTOR he Public Library of Science. And most exploited, chose to pursue charges, and what motivated the US Department of Justice importantly, I am a Red Sox fan. (More to demand jail time for his transgression. about me here).
    [Show full text]
  • Keepgrabbing.Py : Additions, and Documents
    keepgrabbing.py : additions, and documents. Camille Akmut January 13, 2020 Abstract Important program continues to be reviewed from all perspectives. 1 Additions Python’s str() function takes an object and converts it to a string… >>> str(1) '1' In this example, the integer 1 becomes the string ‘1’ (or “1”). >>> type(1) <class 'int'> >>> type('1') <class 'str'> (Side note : In Python, the single quotes ‘ ‘ do not signify a character as opposed to a string; for which double quotes “ “ would be used - in Haskell. In that former language, they are the same (type of objects, they have the same type) : >>> '1' == "1" True >>> '10' # '10' is not a character (but '1' is for example) '10' >>> type('10') <class 'str'> >>> type("10") <class 'str'> ) Haskell’s version of Python’s split() is words (from the Data.List module) : Prelude Data.List> words "article1 article2" ["article1","article2"] Here I’ve re-written the proxy of the lambda function that I showed, in Haskell : Prelude> line = (\x -> x*2) Prelude> line 3 6 Prelude> blocks = [3,2,1] Prelude> map line blocks [6,4,2] (mapping is the functional programming equivalent of looping, as found in languages with imperative elements / Python) or, closer to Aaron’s application : Prelude> line = (\x -> ["curl"] ++ [x]) Prelude> line "--proxy" ["curl","--proxy"] Now you may be asking yourself : how do we go from this list of strings, to something that could be passed to Curl/Wget or the Shell? We do this : Prelude> unwords ["curl","--proxy"] "curl --proxy" (Haskell has a function just for this, unwords. If it did not we would have needed to write our own, most likely a fold.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Infrastructure Report
    AUTHORED BY: TIFFANY EAST ER ADAM EATON HALEY EWING TREY GREEN CHRIS GRIFFIN CHANDLER LEWIS KRISTINA MILLIGAN KERI WEINMAN ADVISOR: DR. DANNY DAVIS 2018-2019 CAPSTONE PROJECT CLIENT: POINTSTREAM, INC. COMPREHENSIVE U.S. CYBER FRAMEWORK KEY ASPECTS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, PRIVATE SECTOR, AND PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION 2018 – 2019 Capstone Team The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University Advisor: Danny W. Davis, Ph.D. About the Project This project is a product of the Class of 2019 Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University Capstone Program. The project lasted one academic year and involved eight second-year master students. It intends to synthesize and provide clarity in the realm of issues pertaining to U.S. Internet Protocol Space by demonstrating natural partnerships and recommendations for existing cyber incident response. The project was produced at the request of PointStream Inc., a private cybersecurity contractor. Mission This capstone team analyzed existing frameworks for cyber incident response for PointStream Inc. in order to propose a comprehensive and efficient plan for U.S. cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, and private sector stakeholders. Advisor Dr. Danny Davis - Associate Professor of the Practice and Director, Graduate Certificate in Homeland Security Capstone Team Tiffany Easter - MPSA 2019 Adam Eaton - MPSA 2019 Haley Ewing - MPSA 2019 Trey Green - MPSA 2019 Christopher Griffin - MPSA 2019 Chandler Lewis - MPSA 2019 Kristina Milligan - MPSA 2019 Keri Weinman - MPSA 2019 Acknowledgement The Capstone Team would like to express gratitude to COL Phil Waldron, Founder and CEO of PointStream Inc., for this opportunity and invaluable support throughout the duration of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybercrime: an Overview of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Statute and Related Federal Criminal Laws
    Order Code 97-1025 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Cybercrime: An Overview of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Statute and Related Federal Criminal Laws Updated June 28, 2005 Charles Doyle Senior Specialist American Law Division Alyssa Bartlett Weir Law Clerk American Law Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Cybercrime: An Overview of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Statute and Related Federal Criminal Laws Summary The federal computer fraud and abuse statute, 18 U.S.C. 1030, protects federal computers, bank computers, and computers used in interstate and foreign commerce. It shields them from trespassing, threats, damage, espionage, and from being corruptly used as instruments of fraud. It is not a comprehensive provision, but instead it fills crack and gaps in the protection afforded by other federal criminal laws. This is a brief sketch of section 1030 and some of its federal statutory companions. In their present form, the seven paragraphs of subsection 1030(a) outlaw: ! computer trespassing (e.g., hacking) in a government computer, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(3); ! computer trespassing (e.g., hackers) resulting in exposure to certain governmental, credit, financial, or commercial information, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2); ! damaging a government computer, a bank computer, or a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., a worm, computer virus, Trojan horse, time bomb, a denial of service attack, and other forms of cyber attack, cyber crime, or cyber terrorism), 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5); ! committing fraud an integral part of which involves unauthorized access to a government computer, a bank computer, or a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce, 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG ~ a Nonprofit Corporation Public Works for a Better Government
    PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG ~ A Nonprofit Corporation Public Works for a Better Government November 20, 2015 Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: Thank you for your kind invitation of July 20, 2015 to provide an update on the issue of edicts of government that you invited me to discuss with you on January 14, 2014. In my testimony, I detailed some of the obstacles our nonprofit corporation was beginning to face for posting primary legal documents such as federal and state regulations and official state codes on the Internet. While there has been a huge amount of progress in making edicts of government more readily available and accessible on the Internet since that time, the obstacles that we face have also increased. I’m attaching for your review a summary of Public Resource’s activities in the area of edicts of government in 2015. As you can see, that list if rather extensive. Our work this year falls in three general categories: • In 2015, Public Resource responded to 10 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). In each case an agency was proposing to incorporate by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations public safety standards. Our comments were submitted with co-signatories representing a broad segment of the public. On the diving safety NPRM submitted to the Coast Guard, for example, six certified divers joined us as cosignatories. For a comment on Federal Highway Administration road standards, we were joined by distinguished transportation experts and by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).
    [Show full text]