Court orders names to be withheld before release of Aaron Swartz records by John Ribeiro.
From the post:
The government dismissed charges against Swartz shortly after his death. But his estate filed to remove a protective order of November 2011, barring disclosure of documents, files or records except in certain situations. The estate cited the need to disclose the records to the U.S. Congress after a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform decided to investigate the prosecution of Swartz, and review one of the statutes under which he was charged.
MIT, JSTOR and the government, however, asked that the names and other personal identification of their staff referred to in the documents should be redacted.
(…)
The judge said the court concludes that “the estate’s interest in disclosing the identity of individuals named in the production, as it relates to enhancing the public’s understanding of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Swartz, is substantially outweighed by the interest of the government and the victims in shielding their employees from potential retaliation.”
Well, that certainly makes sense.
The government and MIT can smear Aaron Swartz, engage in “intimidation and prosecutorial overreach,” literally drive Aaron to suicide, but after all, it’s MIT and the U.S. Attorney’s office.
Why should they be held accountable?
It’s clear the government isn’t going to hold those responsible accountable, but that doesn’t have to be the end of the story.
First, MIT donors can withhold donations to MIT unless and until such time as MIT outs all of those involved at MIT and they are no longer employed by MIT.
Second, everyone in education, industry and technology, here or abroad, can shun those outed by MIT. No jobs, no appointments, no contracts, not ever. They need a long opportunity to feel some of the pain they inflicted on Aaron Swartz.
Third, the U.S. Attorney’s office personnel should be known from court records, although holding them accountable may be more difficult.
Their conduct in this case will be a plus for the sort of law firms likely to hire them when they leave government service.
You will have to be creative in finding legal social practices to make them sincerely regret their conduct in this case.
If the government won’t act on our behalf, who else do we have to turn to?