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?

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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
bmaz @armandodkos @ThePlumLineGS My guess is no, will be nearly entirely statutory discussion.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz King v. Burwell: What will we learn from oral argument? http://t.co/4XuFrtLmZb Nice take by @armandodkos
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ThePlumLineGS: Reposting my read on how Roberts and Kennedy could side with challengers, if they so choose: http://t.co/wmQ1CVcaBv
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ggreenwald: FYI: The "Snowden to return if fair trial!!" stories are silly: he's been saying the same exact thing for 20 months http:/…
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @emptywheel: I'm happy for Hillary to pay price for dodging transparency, but ALL citizens have interest in fixing email retention for A…
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel Also, didn't Obama have an issue with non-existent WH Tech Officers?
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @PhilPerspective Robert Kraft was also in attendance. He could make clapping like trained seals very lucrative for Dems too. @bmaz
14mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @emptywheel: On Hillary and email control, remember that White House control of emails didn't prevent a slew of emails from disappearing…
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @joshua_eaton Yes, he raised it.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @emptywheel: Anyone yet get the details on the fundraiser(s) after Bibi's speech? Did Sheldon Adelson basically buy Bibi a session of Co…
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @jgarzik: @jackgillum @NoahShachtman Standard legal trick. I knew a paranoid techie whose email server resided in his attorney's office.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @JohnWonderlich: years of a vacant inspector general position looks even worse when your email has been removed from public employees' r…
24mreplyretweetfavorite
January 2013
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031