|
|
|
|
|
|
by ScottBurson
4548 days ago
|
|
|
Here's more detail, from III.A.2 (top of p. 52): During
the June 21
conversation, the lead prosecutor also told OGC [the MIT Office of General Counsel] that, essentially, his
work was done,
that
the final decision about the prosecution was now in the hands of his
supervisors, and that a decision would be made soon. The OGC attorney took the
opportunity to suggest that some people at MIT would be likely to view the prosecution
negatively.
The lead prosecutor replied that he understood the complex dynamics at MIT.
He said that he had
also been in touch with JSTOR and understood their perspective, and
had taken both into account in moving forward with the prosecution and he would let
MIT know when the indictment came down.
From this, OGC inferred that further
presentations of MIT’s opinions were unlikely to have an effect on the prosecution: the
views of both potential victims had already been taken into account. JSTOR (at that
point) was regarded as the primary victim, and if JSTOR’s view didn’t have an impact,
then neither would MIT’s view. |
|
|
"The heavily redacted documents released today confirm earlier reports that the Secret Service was interested in a “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” that Swartz and others had penned in 2008. In May 2011, a Secret Service agent and a detective from the Cambridge police department interviewed a friend of Swartz and inquired specifically about the political statement."
If you are a hammer, you must smash all nails as hard as possible until they commit suicide? Is that prosecution discretion?
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/swartz-foia-release...