[pbhjpbhj]

>Earlier this year, the COD conducted a confidential internal review based upon allegations it received regarding certain aspects of this paper. While student privacy laws and MIT policy prohibit the disclosure of the outcome of this review, we are writing to inform you that MIT has no confidence in the provenance, reliability or validity of the data and has no confidence in the veracity of the research contained in the paper. Based upon this finding, we also believe that the inclusion of this paper in arXiv may violate arXiv’s Code of Conduct.

It sounds like "we don't like it and won't tell you why, we're hiding behind MIT policy and vague notions of privacy".

MIT should just demonstrate in a paper what the shortcomings are and print it, adding it to the citation tree of the original.

Looking very briefly at the paper and speculating wildly, I could imagine that the company who were subject of it - or their staff - might not appreciate it and have put pressure on MIT??

Solid amount of Streisand Effect going on here -- lots of attention has been bought to the paper (and that is everything after all!).

[shkkmo]

> Looking very briefly at the paper and speculating wildly, I could imagine that the company who were subject of it - or their staff - might not appreciate it and have put pressure on MIT??

The apparent issue is that the data appears to have been entirely fabricated and is a lie. The author appears to simply be a fraud

[duskwuff]

> It sounds like "we don't like it and won't tell you why, we're hiding behind MIT policy and vague notions of privacy".

FERPA is federal law. It is quite likely that MIT is legally bound to not release some pieces of evidence which are crucial in this case (hypothetically, for example: that the student's educational record is inconsistent with claims made in the paper).