Leaked Details of MIT Investigation

The NYT reports details that must come from MIT’s investigation–though the spokesperson insists it’s a review–of its involvement in Aaron Swartz’ arrest and conviction.

There are a few I find of particular interest.

First, MIT claims it learned that Aaron was still downloading JSTOR materials on January 3.

However, on Jan. 3, 2011, according to internal M.I.T. documents obtained by The New York Times, the university was informed that the intruder was back — this time downloading documents very slowly, with a new method of access, so as not to alert the university’s security experts.

Court documents say JSTOR informed MIT about this around Christmas.

The NYT references “a security expert” analyzing MIT’s network.

Early on Jan. 4, at 8:08 a.m., according to Mr. Halsall’s detailed internal timeline of the events, a security expert was able to locate that new method of access precisely — the wiring in a network closet in the basement of Building 16, a nondescript rectangular structure full of classrooms and labs that, like many buildings on campus, is kept unlocked.

This is a detail I’ve long wondered about: who was the expert and what tools did she or he use?

And then there’s the thoroughly unsurprising news that Michael Pickett was with MIT’s head cop when they found Aaron on January 6, 2011.

A little after 2 p.m., according to the government, Mr. Swartz was spotted heading down Massachusetts Avenue within a mile of M.I.T. After being questioned by an M.I.T. police officer, he dropped his bike and ran (according to the M.I.T. timeline, he was stopped by an M.I.T. police captain and Mr. Pickett).

Anyone want to bet they were using some fancy surveillance to find Aaron?

Twitter5Reddit0Facebook1Google+1Email

42 Responses to Leaked Details of MIT Investigation

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @MicahZenko Isn't that what DiFi and Mike Rogers have been saying. It might be the rare time when Rogers' fear-mongering was true!
54sreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @johnson_carrie: Amy Jeffress, former DC prosecutor and national security official at @thejusticedept, joins Arnold & Porter law firm in…
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel "Center prepared to show in great detail how little ABC’s Brian Ross & Matt Mosk understood abt even most fundamental concepts & key facts"
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @gregorydjohnsen Or is making shit up again to be inflammatory.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @gregorydjohnsen And your expert opinion on that claim?
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @JoeSudbay: Not sure how @comcast can handle a big merger when it can't handle service in middle of DC.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @faisalislam: Ex Anglo Irish Chairman Sean Fitzpatrick: not guilty on all counts, walks free from #anglotrial http://t.co/o32BKHqTIW
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @sbagen I keep waiting for someone to sue Senate Press Gallery as their standards are very arbitrary. @SCOTUSblog would make perfect case.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel It's ironic that CIA boasting abt disseminating censored docs as 9/11 trial grinds to a halt over censored shitty doc http://t.co/ilNVAkp3w6
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Dangerous Censored Documents, in Soviet Russia and War on Terror America http://t.co/ilNVAkp3w6
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @khanserai Dunno. I think self-interested and often deceptive leaking is reflexive for FBI. It's like breathing to them. @onekade
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @khanserai Precisely. They can say whatever they want to NBC, and NBC won't question why that's possible. W/DOJ it'd be risky. @onekade
5hreplyretweetfavorite
January 2013
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031