Techdirt. Stories filed under "mit"

MIT And Aaron Swartz's Lawyers Argue Over Releasing Evidence

Mike Masnick — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:07:15 PDT

Last Friday, Aaron Swartz's lawyers asked the court that had been overseeing his case to lift a protective order on material submitted during discovery, which Swartz's family and lawyers say will help show how bogus the case against him was -- and which they've hinted will show how MIT went way too far in trying to help prosecutors go after Swartz. According to exchanges between Swartz's lawyer, Elliot Peters, and MIT staff (including MIT President Rafael Reif), MIT has argued that such documents should not be revealed because (a) it might violate the privacy of MIT employees and (b) because MIT never intended the info to be public. Peters discovered this after a reporter for the Wall Street Journal forwarded him the following statement from MIT:

The decision to lift the protective order rests with the judge who put it in place. Documents provided by MIT in the Swartz case included individual names and information regarding MIT employees. It is MIT policy and practice to protect employee privacy. MIT provided the documents under the express understanding that they would be protected from disclosure, which is the purpose of the protective order. Given this, we are concerned about any public release of information about individual MIT employees: we will seek to protect their privacy. At the same time, MIT is eager to share important facts about its actions in the Aaron Swartz matter with the public: Professor Hal Abelson has been charged by President Rafael Reif with conducting an analysis that will be made public in the coming weeks.

Peters, quite reasonably, found this statement to be absurd. Especially the part about MIT claiming that it provided the documents in the belief that they would be kept secret. As Peters noted in response, this was obviously untrue.

"This statement is an insult to my intelligence. The documents were provided to the government before any protective order was entered, and directly contrary to this statement, with the express understanding that they would be used in a criminal prosecution', which would lead to a PUBLIC TRIAL, at which time the documents would be offered into evidence and the witnesses would testify, in public. MIT never could have expected these materials not to become public, and I find this statement to be shockingly misleading and insincere."

Around this same time, the Congressional investigation into Swartz's prosecution requested the same information. Given that, Swartz's legal team met with the DOJ to discuss releasing the documents currently under protective order. They agreed to redact certain personal information (phone numbers, emails, home addresses, social security numbers, birthdays), as well as the names of four people who were questioned during the investigation, but who "were not actively involved in either the Government's or any institution's investigation" into Swartz. However, where the conversations broke down was over redacting the names and info of just about everyone else: law enforcement, MIT employees and JSTOR employees.

Swartz's lawyer argues that this information should be public and if the case had gone forward would have been public:

Criminal proceedings in our nation's courts are presumptively public....

As described above, the circumstances in this case have changed dramatically. Perhaps most obviously, with Mr. Swartz's death, there is no longer a case to prosecute and thus no danger that disclosure will impede a fair trial. Mr. Swartz's tragic death has also led to an increase in public interest in both the details of the investigation and prosecution and the reasonableness of prosecutions under the CFAA generally. In its discussions with Mr. Swartz's counsel about modifying the Protective Order, the Government has not, to date, asserted any reliance interest based on the Protective Order. Even if it were to assert such an interest, any Government reliance on the Protective Order's terms is tempered by the fact that it is a blanket order and therefore inherently overinclusive. As this District explained in Bulger, modification of such a blanket order is not unusual. Id. at 54. As a result, the only interest left to be balanced against the significant public interest in access to unredacted documents is the alleged privacy interest of the government employees and third party individuals named in the discovery materials. For the reasons discussed below, those interests are minimal and are overcome by the public interest in the disclosure of these documents.

They further note that hiding the names of those actually responsible will make the Congressional investigation into what happened much more difficult. Second, the information was provided initially without any expectation that this info would be kept private, so to ask for it to be kept private now makes little sense. In fact, they note that most of the people named, who the government and MIT wish to redact, were likely potential witnesses had the trial been able to move forward. "Consequently, MIT and JSTOR cannot now claim any reliance interest on behalf of their employees in the continued privacy of their emails at the time they produced the emails at issue to the government." They further point out that most of the names in question are already public and highlight press accounts and previous releases of documents in the case that specifically name: "MIT employees Dave Newman, Paul Acosta, Ellen Duranceau, Ann Wolpert, Mike Halsall, and Mark Sillis and JSTOR employee Brian Larsen, identifies their positions, and quotes their email communications." Given that this is already public, it seems odd to further seek to redact their participation.

The argument in the other direction is that the attention this case has received means that names of such folks might lead to threats, but Swartz's lawyer says there has been no evidence presented of any threats to MIT or JSTOR employees -- and even if there was, that wouldn't necessitate blocking out info on all such employees.

Separately, his lawyers point out that redacting law enforcement officials names makes even less sense, given that they are public employees.

Days after this motion was filed, MIT "responded" by agreeing to release the documents itself... but with those same redactions requested by the DOJ. MIT President Reif has tried to spin this as being "in the spirit of openness, balanced with responsibility." Of course, that doesn't make much sense. The DOJ has already agreed that this same level of information should be released, so MIT isn't doing anything here other than making it appear -- falsely -- as if it is making some concession towards openness. On top of that, MIT has said it will not release this info until its overall investigation is over.

Not surprisingly, Swartz's family is not particularly impressed by all of this. In a statement provided to us, Swartz's girlfriend, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, notes that this is misleading not just because MIT isn't doing anything new here, but also in that this isn't MIT's decision at all.

“I welcome President Reif's commitment to transparency. However, this announcement is misleading. MIT does not get to decide in what form the evidence is released publicly. The judge does. MIT has already given this evidence to the courts, at which point it gave up proprietary control over the evidence. President Reif's decision simply foreshadows the inevitability that the judge will release at least this much of the evidence. It sets a low bar, but it does not decide the matter. The redacted documents MIT is releasing only tell one part of the story. Huge amounts of information would still be hidden beneath the protective order -- information that MIT's investigators themselves will not have access to unless the protective order is lifted. If MIT is really committed to transparency and having a full, complete investigation, they need to join the call with Aaron’s lawyers to lift the protective order."

Similarly, Aaron's father, Robert Swartz, noted that this is not a concession by MIT, and that MIT already gave up its rights to these documents, so trying to control how they are disseminated makes little sense.

"This is not a change in MIT's position. MIT could have no expectation of privacy or security since this evidence was given to the government with the understanding that it was evidence in a public trial,” said Robert Swartz, Aaron’s father. “They understood when they gave these documents to the government that they had no rights to privacy or security. MIT should release all internal communications related to this case whether or not they were provided to the government including all internal communications they had related to how they handled it and decided not to ask the government to drop the case."

Stinebrickner-Kauffman also pointed out that "if MIT wished to protect these people's privacy, MIT should not have become involved in the criminal trial to begin with. They made a calculated decision not to nip this case in the bud. They don't get to avoid the consequences now, after Aaron’s death."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oh Wait: MIT Already Made All Its Research Open; So Why Was It So Against Aaron Swartz?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:43:56 PST

We recently picked up on a suggestion by Farhad Manjoo over at Slate that MIT should make all of its research open access as an apology for assisting in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz. Some people in our comments, reacting angrily against this idea, noted that faculty could not be forced to make their works open access by an administration. Well, it turns out that it's already happening. Daniel Hawkins pointed out that MIT faculty unanimously agreed that all its faculty members would release their works under an open access policy... back in 2009.

The Faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible. In keeping with that commitment, the Faculty adopts the following policy: Each Faculty member grants to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology nonexclusive permission to make available his or her scholarly articles and to exercise the copyright in those articles for the purpose of open dissemination. In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to MIT a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit, and to authorize others to do the same. The policy will apply to all scholarly articles written while the person is a member of the Faculty except for any articles completed before the adoption of this policy and any articles for which the Faculty member entered into an incompatible licensing or assignment agreement before the adoption of this policy.

This is a good policy, and one you would hope that other universities would adopt as well.

But, in light of the situation with Aaron Swartz, it just makes it that much more baffling why MIT helped push the case forward and, despite repeated requests to do so, failed to join JSTOR in asking the feds to drop the case. Here is MIT, a school that has widely embraced both the hacker culture and the widespread and free dissemination of academic research, and it helped push forward and supported a massively over-aggressive campaign by the Justice Department against Aaron for embracing the same principles the school itself publicly supports. It's incredible, baffling... and disappointing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Did The Secret Service Take Over Aaron Swartz's Case Two Days Before He Was Arrested

Mike Masnick — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:45:00 PST

Many have noted that the US Attorneys had made a new filing on the day that Aaron Swartz committed suicide. While the filing may look like just a standard procedural filing, some are pointing out that it highlights some highly unusual activity in the case. It had to do with Swartz's motion to get some of the evidence blocked from being used in the case, over questions concerning how it was collected. But one of the key things that come out is that, for unexplained reasons, the Secret Service took over the case just two days before Aaron was arrested:

MIT and JSTOR conferred regarding methods to prevent excessive downloading. Timeline at 3-4. On December 26, 2010, there was another episode of excessive downloading, which MIT personnel did not learn of until on or about January 3, 2011. On the morning of January 4, 2011, at approximately 8:00 am, MIT personnel located the netbook being used for the downloads and decided to leave it in place and institute a packet capture of the network traffic to and from the netbook. Timeline at 6. This was accomplished using the laptop of Dave Newman, MIT Senior Network Engineer, which was connected to the netbook and intercepted the communications coming to and from it. Id. Later that day, beginning at 11:00 am, the Secret Service assumed control of the investigation.

As Emptywheel points out, it doesn't make any sense for the Secret Service to be involved in such an issue:

According to the Secret Service, they get involved in investigations with:

Significant economic or community impact

Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations

Use of schemes involving new technology

Downloading scholarly articles is none of those things.

The same filing shows that MIT allowed all of this to happen despite no warrant, court order, or subpoena -- just handing over all sorts of info.

The disclosure took place only after the MIT General Counsel’s Office approved the disclosure of the information to law enforcement authorities even in the absence of a warrant or court order or subpoena – and at a time when MIT personnel were acting as government agents – and in contravention of MIT policy that such information, which exceeded that found in bank records or telephone toll records, would be disclosed only upon the receipt of lawful court orders or subpoenas, i.e., process complying with the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Â§2701 et seq. See Section IV, infra. In a separate email from Halsall to S/A Picket on January 8, 2011, Halsall told Pickett that he “hop[ed] to have the pcap/flows/videos/logs all in by to me Monday, possibly sooner – if you don’t already have a copy of the video or pcap [packet capture], I’ll make sure you get one.” Exhibit 2. No warrant or court order has been provided to counsel which would evidence the government’s having, even post-interception, acquired the contents of the warrantless interceptions by seeking judicial authorization as required.

As more and more people are looking at the details of what went down in arresting and pressuring Aaron, the case just looks worse and worse.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

US Government Ups Felony Count In JSTOR/Aaron Swartz Case From Four To Thirteen

Tim Cushing — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:24:14 PDT

Not much has been said about the Aaron Swartz case over the past year as the wheels of "justice" slowly grind their way to an eventual court date. Swartz, the executive director of Demand Progress, was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a catch-all designation for "computer activity the US government doesn't like."

Swartz had accessed MIT's computer network to download a large number of files from JSTOR, a non-profit that hosts academic journal articles. US prosecutors claimed he "stole" several thousand files, but considering MIT offered this access for free on campus (and the files being digital), it's pretty tough to square his massive downloading with any idea of "theft."

Not only that, but JSTOR was not the entity pressing charges. It had stopped the downloading and secured the "stolen" content, along with receiving assurances from Swartz that the files would not be distributed. Despite this, the feds felt compelled to arrest Swartz and charge him with four felony counts (one each for Wire Fraud, Computer Fraud, Theft of Information from a Computer and Recklessly Damaging a Computer). At this point, Swartz was looking at a possible 35-year sentence and over $1,000,000 in fines.

Whoever's pushing this case must really dislike Swartz and/or his activities. A "Superseding Indictment" (pdf) has been filed, raising the number of felony counts from four to thirteen. Seth Finkelstein at Infothought has a brief rundown of the new charges (h/t to Nate Hoffelder for the link):

There are now 13 felony counts in the new indictment, derived from claims of multiple instances of breaking those four laws. In specific:

Wire Fraud - 2 counts
Computer Fraud - 5 counts
Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer - 5 counts
Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer - 1 count

It's beyond my pay grade to figure out how many years in prison that all could be, when taking into account the complexities of sentencing law. Let's leave it at a large scary number. Enough to ruin someone's life.

The new filing basically realleges all the original charges but ups the felony count by providing specific dates for each action, turning each marked date into its own felony charge. The allegations refer to Swartz's "repeated" actions as spanning several months, but the feds have pulled some arbitrary dates into the mix to add years and dollars onto his possible sentence. And, again, we have to ask: for what?

JSTOR only showed up because it was subpoenaed and if anyone's the "victim" here, it would be JSTOR. MIT has remained silent on the whole issue. So, either someone's got a deeper interest in this case than they're willing to admit publicly, or the feds found someone with enough "hacking" activity under their belt that they feel comfortable turning the defendant into an "example." Or perhaps this is a belated payback for his thorough gaming of the PACER system during a "free trial" period, something the feds briefly investigated him for back in 2009. It went nowhere as the documents involved were public records, but it had to gall them a bit that he managed to download nearly 20 million pages of text, about 20% of the entire database, before being stopped. (The government likes to collect 8 cents a page for PACER documents, meaning Swartz's stunt "cost" it nearly $1.6 million, assuming you have no idea how to properly measure "costs.")

So, how do the new charges stack up in terms of a sentence? Tough to say. Each of the charges carries the possibility of a fine and imprisonment of up to 10-20 years per felony. Depending on how many of the counts Swartz is found guilty of, the sentence could conceivably total 50+ years and fine in the area of $4 million. All this over publicly accessed research documents that JSTOR doesn't even feel the need to pursue further than it did.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Prosthetics To Be Proud Of

Michael Ho — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:00:00 PDT

A few years ago, Oscar Pistorius was not allowed to participate in the Olympics because, as a double amputee, his prosthetic legs might have given him an advantage over athletes who weren't using prosthetic legs. Prosthetic technology doesn't stand still, so it's understandable that the Olympic committee didn't want to allow devices that could give future athletes extremely unfair mechanical advantages. Here are just a few interesting prosthetic developments that might change the perception of "disabled" persons.

Prosthetic limbs don't have to look like medical devices or dead body parts. Artificial legs can be made with a variety of different designs, and the manufacturer of these bespoke legs occasionally requests help from volunteers who can "donate" their legs as a scanned template for prosthetic designs. [url]
Last May, Claire Lomas finished a marathon in a $70,000 bionic suit -- after being paralyzed from the chest down in 2007. She walked about 2 miles per day, so it took her about two weeks to complete the London Marathon. [url]
MIT researchers have created a glucose fuel cell that could be used to power brain implants or other implantable electronics that could control prosthetic devices. This device could get all the sugar it needs from cerebrospinal fluid, so it wouldn't need batteries (although external prosthetics would still need to be powered separately). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What Kind Of Professor Patents A Way To Make It More Expensive & More Difficult For Students To Learn?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:32:00 PDT

Torrentfreak has the story of an economics professor (of all things) who has apparently received a patent on a way to try to force students to buy expensive textbooks. The professor, Joseph Henry Vogel, is positioning this patent (8,195,571) as an "anti-piracy" technique, though it appears that it works equally well in preventing students from sharing a single textbook or merely checking the textbook out of the library. The details of the patent are hardly new or innovative either. The basics are that the class has both a textbook and an online discussion board -- and buying the textbook provides you a code that allows you to enter the discussion board. In theory, you could also just buy the code.

There'a all sorts of idiocy involved in this situation. Let's just separate out a few examples:

How the hell does something like this get patented in the first place? There is a tremendous amount of prior art in the form of things like "one-time" use codes for video games and other digital offerings to limit the used sales market. And yet this still gets approved? USPTO examiner James D. Nigh should be ashamed for letting this piece of garbage get approved.
The claims here (the patent only has four) are so broad and so general, I don't see how it passes the non-obvious test, nor how it is anything more than mashing together a few different things that are widely available already and have been for years. After the KSR ruling the USPTO was supposed to reject broad patents that just combined basic concepts already found in the market.
How could a professor of economics actually think that locking up access to information is a good idea? That alone would make me avoid any class that he taught, as his understanding of information economics is way, way off.
It's sad that anyone in academia would think that this is a good idea. In an age where Harvard and MIT are investing a ton into opening up access, this guy is focused on locking it down.

The whole thing is extraordinary for how bad of an idea it is -- and the fact that a patent was actually issued on this only compounds the ridiculousness.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Harvard And MIT Back Open Education With $60 Million Online Learning Project

Glyn Moody — Mon, 14 May 2012 15:59:00 PDT

News that Harvard University is the latest to join the growing revolt against the exorbitant pricing of academic journals caused something of a stir recently -- although it has been pointed out that its case would be stronger if it followed its own advice and made the Harvard Business Review open access, or at least cheaper.

But here's an area where Harvard, together with MIT, is being more pro-active in helping to make knowledge more widely available online:

EdX is a joint partnership between The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University to offer online learning to millions of people around the world. EdX will offer Harvard and MIT classes online for free. Through this partnership, the institutions aim to extend their collective reach to build a global community of online learners and to improve education for everyone.

EdX will build on both universities’ experience in offering online instructional content. The technological platform recently established by MITx, which will serve as the foundation for the new learning system, was designed to offer online versions of MIT courses featuring video lesson segments, embedded quizzes, immediate feedback, student-ranked questions and answers, online laboratories and student-paced learning. Certificates of mastery will be available for those who are motivated and able to demonstrate their knowledge of the course material.

MIT's MITx platform already offers some MIT courses online, and is open source: EdX will release its learning platform as open-source software so it can be used by other universities and organizations that wish to host the platform themselves. Because the learning technology will be available as open-source software, other universities and individuals will be able to help edX improve and add features to the technology.
The hope is that other universities will join with Harvard and MIT to make EdX one of the primary platforms for online learning. Interestingly, it will also be used to research how people learn using digital technology -- and how it can be deployed more effectively: MIT and Harvard will use the jointly operated edX platform to research how students learn and how technologies can facilitate effective teaching both on-campus and online. The edX platform will enable the study of which teaching methods and tools are most successful. The findings of this research will be used to inform how faculty use technology in their teaching, which will enhance the experience for students on campus and for the millions expected to take advantage of these new online offerings.
This looks like an important move for online learning, not least because of the scale of the financial support: The initiative will be overseen by a not-for-profit organization based in Cambridge, Mass., to be owned and governed equally by the two universities. MIT and Harvard have committed to a combined $60 million ($30 million each) in institutional support, grants and philanthropy to launch the collaboration.
Those funds and the projects they will catalyze could boost efforts to make university courses more widely available, complementing the growing success of open access in opening up published materials.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Storing Up Energy For A Rainy Day...

Michael Ho — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:00:00 PDT

Battery technologies haven't quite achieved the same kind of Moore's Law progress as other kinds of electronics. Being able to store energy is still incredibly important, so there are plenty of projects trying to figure out better ways to store up electricity efficiently. No one has a complete solution, but here are some interesting attempts to manage energy-use fluctuations.

Google is saving on its power bills for a datacenter in Taiwan by storing up thermal energy in ice. Using a giant ice maker retro-fitted to the datacenter's AC systems, Google can store up energy at night and cool its operations during the day when electricity is more expensive. [url]
Beacon Power built a 20-megawatt energy storage system based on flywheels in 2011. Unfortunately, the company went bankrupt that same year, but the firm's assets have been acquired by private equity firm Rockland Capital. [url]
MIT professor, Donald Sadoway, has invented a huge battery for electrical power grids that can handle the huge loads -- and is designed to be "dirt" cheap. Sadoway quips, "We choose to work on gridlevel storage not because it is easy but because it is hard." [url]
To discover more stuff on alternative energy, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]

As always, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

NAMCO Demands Takedown Of Pacman Game Created By Kid Using MIT's Scratch Programming Language

Mike Masnick — Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:37:06 PDT

An anonymous reader sends over the story, found on Reddit of how Namco Bandai sent a letter complaining that a kid recreated Pacman online using Scratch. If you're not familiar with it, Scratch is a very simple programming "language," basically designed to teach kids how to program (or think about programming) from a young age. And what's one of the best ways to learn to program? It's to recreate an app that already exists. But that's not allowed: The really obnoxious part is at the end, where it says "While we appreciate the educational nature of your enterprise and look forward to the contributions of the future programmers you are training, part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others." Apparently propaganda about copyright is more important than actually teaching little Johnny how to program?

This is how kids learn. They recreate what they know. Kids learn to play music by copying the music that they know. Many learn to draw by copying drawings that they see. They learn to write by copying the writers they like. This is how education works. But in a world where copyright trumps all, learning takes a back seat apparently.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lessons Learned From DARPA Balloon Challenge

Mike Masnick — Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:52:00 PST

By now, you've probably heard that a team from MIT won the DARPA balloon challenge, whereby DARPA put 10 red balloons in the air around the country and wanted to see what people could do to find all 10 balloons. The rules were pretty loose, and the team at MIT took all of nine hours or so to locate all ten balloons, through an interesting "crowdsourcing" method. They basically quickly set themselves up as a clearinghouse of information, and made it easily shareable across different social networking platforms, and employed something of an affiliate program to encourage people to get their friends to sign up with the MIT team as well. If you signed up people who helped find the balloons, you got some of the prize money according to your friend network, and so on down through the social pyramid. The team claims that what was most important was the recursive nature of the pyramid, which gave people incentive to participate, even if they knew they couldn't find the balloons.

While some other DARPA challenges, like the autonomous vehicle challenge (to get a totally driverless vehicle to drive a few hundred miles with no help), are cool but seem limited in terms of application outside of the core area it was built for, this one actually does seem to hold a lot of useful lessons that can be picked up on right away, and which can be applied across a lot of different business, policy, IT, public good and many other areas. Some of the key elements:

Recognize that there's power in numbers: Recognize that for certain projects, you need a lot of different minds (and eyes) working on things, and that certain tasks shouldn't just be done by "the one best" individual.
Make it easy for more people to participate: Once you realize that you need a lot of people, you need to make it easy for them to participate.
Give people multiple reasons to participate: Different people have different motivations. Some people just want to belong to a successful project or a leading team to bask in the glow. Others need additional types of incentive. The MIT team offered up monetary compensation in addition to recognition for participation.
Give people a reason to get others involved: Sort of a corollary to recognizing the power in numbers, the MIT team worked hard to give people incentive not just to participate and to promote their participation, but also to recruit others to the team as well. This even made it so those who couldn't help finding the balloons directly could still participate in better finding the people who could find the balloons.
Align incentives properly: Make sure that everyone is driving towards the same goal, and that the incentives work on top of one another to all push towards that same goal.
Look beyond your immediate "group": One of the coolest things I thought about the MIT group was that there was nothing in there that limited it to MIT or the folks at MIT. They immediately recognized that it made the most sense to reach out to folks beyond their immediate circle, which is what helped them get the people they needed involved quickly.

Now, a lot of these may sound obvious, but it's often important to remind yourself of these basic concepts, and it's impressive to see how well (and how fast) these worked in the case of the MIT balloon team. I could see these lessons being applied in a lot of other areas as well. There is a separate issue that the team hasn't discussed yet, but promises to eventually: which is that it also had to deal with a number of bogus entries -- including at least some from a competing team trying to throw the MIT team off the scent. Finding out how they got around such problems would also be quite interesting in terms of better managing these sorts of group efforts.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MIT Police Suspended For Trashing Student Newspaper

Mike Masnick — Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:53:38 PDT

Apparently, two police officers at MIT have been suspended after they decided that students at the university shouldn't see a front page story about another MIT police officer caught dealing drugs -- so they dumped hundreds of copies of the paper in the trash (well, actually a recycling bin -- they may want to censor, but not clog landfills, apparently). Of course, it really makes you wonder what they hoped to accomplish. The MIT paper, The Tech, is available online, including the article in question. Throwing out the papers probably did little (if anything) to stop people from reading about the incident -- and simply ended up calling more attention to questionable activities by MIT police. All of this, of course, highlights yet another nice benefit to online newspapers: people can't throw them out to try to hide what's in them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MBTA Will Work With MIT Students, Rather Than Suing Them, To Improve Security

Mike Masnick — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:57:36 PST

You may recall, back in August, that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority convinced a judge to ban the Defcon presentation by three MIT students, showing how weak the security was on the Boston transit system, and how easy it was to get past it. Of course, in trying to ban the talk, the MBTA only succeeded in getting a lot more attention for its own security vulnerabilities -- and, in the end, the judge lifted the gag order anyway, allowing the students to present their research.

The good news is that the MBTA has now dropped the lawsuit and done what it should have done in the first place: agreed to work with the students to come up with ways to improve security. It's good that they eventually came to this conclusion -- though still mind-boggling that they went down the legal route first.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Still Keeps MIT Students Gagged Over Subway Hacking Presentation

Mike Masnick — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:37:00 PDT

The EFF tried to get the gag order lifted off the three MIT students who had planned a presentation on how Boston's subway system was vulnerable to some hacks. However, a judge has left the gag order in place, saying that it will be discussed at a hearing next Tuesday. He also ordered the students to hand over more information.

There's been a long debate in the security community about what is proper "disclosure." There are some who believe that you should wait until a vulnerability is fixed before disclosing it, while others believe that only by disclosing it are people really motivated to fix the vulnerability. However, most of those debates haven't taken place in court -- so this particular case should be quite interesting for those who are involved in security research, no matter which side of the "disclosure" debate you fall on.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Boston Subway System Stops Defcon Talk; But Paints Security Target On Its Back

Mike Masnick — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:13:01 PDT

You would think after years and years of it backfiring every time some scared organization tries to shut down a talk concerning their security vulnerabilities, that people wouldn't even bother any more. But never underestimate the short-sightedness of some execs. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority uses a magnetic strip card system to access the subway system in Boston. That system is not particularly secure, and some enterprising MIT students planned to demonstrate just how weak the security was on the system this weekend at the Defcon conference... until the MBTA convinced a judge to ban the presentation and demand that all copies of the presentation not be released -- which is problematic since all attendees at the conference already obtained CDs with a copy of the presentation. Also, somewhat ironically, a copy of the presentation was entered in as evidence in the case, and that copy is now publicly available as part of the court records system. Oops.

Of course, even if the court had actually been able to stop the distribution of the presentation, it's silly to think that this would have stopped the dissemination of the methods for hacking the system. The truth is that the MBTA's system uses woefully weak security, and rather than doing anything to strengthen it, it has to threaten some bright MIT students and get a court order to pretend the such security vulnerabilities don't exist. And, of course, in doing this, all the MBTA has really done is painted a huge target on its back. Perhaps it should have just focused on making its system a bit more secure instead.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Ok, How About A $12 Computer?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:20:22 PDT

Last week, we wrote about supposed efforts in India to build a $10 computer. However, Indian officials later explained that there was a typo in the transcript to the speech in question, and they really meant a $100 computer. But don't think others aren't trying for cheaper computers. The Raw Feed points out that some folks at MIT (ironically, the home of OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte) are working on building $12 computers for the developing world, using the old Apple II as a base. It seems like an interesting plan, though still quite far away from reality. But, still, in this space, more competition is good, no matter how much Negroponte wishes he were the only provider.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

YouTomb Joins Chilling Effects In Tracking Takedowns

Mike Masnick — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:29:00 PDT

The DMCA lets copyright holders send takedown messages to various sites, demanding allegedly infringing content be taken offline. It's been rather successful in doing that. A few years ago, a great site, Chilling Effects sprung up to track all sorts of takedown notices (not just having to do with copyright, but any kind of cease & desist threats -- though DMCA takedowns are common). It's a joint effort by the EFF and a bunch of universities, and has been invaluable in tracking the efforts by some to threaten people into taking down various types of content. Now, in a similar effort, MIT is sponsoring a site that will track takedowns of videos on YouTube. The site is creatively named YouTomb. This isn't to say that the copyright holders are wrong in sending the takedown notices -- but it's important to collect information and data on how often these tools are being used and by whom to get a better understanding of whether the system really makes sense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story