MIT supports release of Swartz case documents, if redacted for employee privacy

ia600504.us.archive.org

25 points·lwf··6 comments

tl;dr: MIT is choosing to ask the court to relax a protection order releasing MIT documents related to the Swartz case on the condition that the documents be redacted to protect the privacy of MIT's employees.

Open articleView on HN

In summary: MIT is choosing to ask the court to relax a protection order releasing MIT documents related to the Swartz case on the condition that the documents be redacted to protect the privacy of MIT's employees.

Yep ... you beat me to it, but I hope someone fixes up the misleading title.

This is not a particularly accurate title. MIT could release the records at any point (they are MITs to do with whatever they please), and in fact already committed to do so once redaction had occurred.

MIT actually expressly opposes in this document the Keker & Van Nest LLP proposed modification of the protective order, without redaction. And in fact brings up a serious procedural misconduct of Keker & Van Nest LLP (they should have already destroyed any copies they possessed already because the criminal case was fully concluded).

I'd rather they be forced to release the documents intact, vs. waiting even longer to release them themselves with redactions. Although I suspect the Internet/wikileaks/etc. will repair any redactions in released files.

The kerning of the scribd view is really weird in Chrome. And almost as bad in IE.

There's another way that scribd sucks? You don't say!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com