Some actual reporting on this issue besides just the letter from the MIT President can be found at <a href="http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N13/swartz.html" rel="nofollow">http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N13/swartz.html</a><p>Apparently JSTOR also supports redaction:
"
JSTOR’s response was similar to MIT’s. “We believe the information we provided to the United States Attorney’s Office in this case should be made open and available to the public. In a letter dated Feb. 25, we agreed to the lifting of the protective order so long as the articles downloaded from JSTOR were not released and the identities of our staff are protected,” said Heidi McGregor, a JSTOR spokeswoman, in an email to The Tech. “We do not agree that individuals’ names need to be included with these materials to serve the public interest.”
"<p>"
“Although the United States and representatives of Mr. Swartz agreed on many proposed modifications to the order, the United States and Mr. Swartz’s representatives did not reach agreement on the scope of the redactions,” Pirozzolo said.<p>“The United States expects to respond to the motion within the time provided by the district court rules,” he said. “It will also request that individuals potentially affected by the modification of the order be given an opportunity to be heard on the proposed modifications.”
"<p>Given that last part you can certainly expect the MIT documents to come out much much faster than Gov documents.
He is walking a tightrope. And protecting the privacy of those that are not deemed culpable in some way is understandable.
However to be consistent with his previous acceptance of MIT holding some responsibility, he probably should:
(1) release the redacted documents now.
(2) perhaps not refer to this as the "Aaron Swartz situation" or state that "In the time since Aaron Swartz's suicide, we have seen........ ", as this wording is less accepting of some responsibility and really is putting the full burden of the backlash on Aaron. (he could perhaps say "our handling of the Aaron Swartz situation".)<p>It would appear that regardless of what MIT does, it would be up to the court when and how to release the un-redacted version.<p>....and MIT, for F<i></i>ks sake, get your Network security together, that is really not a great reflection on your reputation as world class engineering org.
Translated to actions, that means 1) MIT lawyers are going to argue against being compelled to release the un-modified documents immediately 2) the Abelson report isn't going to come out in 2013 ("careful").
That's fine, as long as the names of the people who made the relevant decisions regarding the case are released. It's unacceptable to hide that information.
A little confused here...is Pastebin the communication method of choice for the President of MIT? Is this a re-posting of a letter? How have we verified that this is indeed from the President of MIT? All I see is a Pastebin guest account pasting a message with a text signature, and I don't see how that can be considered a verified communication to be commented on. I might be missing something; if so, someone please enlighten me.
Can anyone link to the harassment/threats he mentions? (Mostly the latter, I'm sure there was much harassment but I have yet to see any real "threats").
Why is Professor Abelson involved in this - i.e. why not a committee or $LAWYER to conduct a review? Not that I have a problem with it but it just sounds weird to have someone like Professor Abelson do what would amount to identifying personal info and redacting it from the documents.
Carte Blanche power of redaction combined with "openness"? This is Orwellian double-speak. If they want to reasonably redact, that's fine to an extent, so long as there's an uninterested third party review.