Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz

from the sad dept

Last summer, MIT tried (weakly) to defend what it called its "neutral" stance on Aaron Swartz, allowing the case to proceed even though the only party that had a legitimate claim to "harm," JSTOR, had come out almost immediately after Swartz's indictment to say that it did not support the prosecution. Around the same time, we noted that MIT was in the midst of a legal fight to block the release of Swartz's Secret Service file. Some found this effort a bit odd -- but the reasons are now becoming clear. An investigative report by the Boston Globe, scouring 7,000 pages of discovery documents in the case, found that some employees at MIT appeared to gleefully support going after Swartz with all of the powers of the DOJ.

In a handful of e-mails, individual MIT employees involved in the case aired sentiments that were far from neutral. One, for example, gushed to prosecutor Stephen P. Heymann about the quality of the indictment of Swartz.

“Nicely done Steve and kudos! All points . . . are as accurate as I’ve ever seen,” wrote the information technology employee. “(I only say that because every time I’ve ever given an interview, details are always slightly to horribly munged; not that I ever expected any less, it’s just a true relief and very refreshing to see your accuracy and precision).”

Elsewhere, it becomes clear that MIT helped escalate the case when calling in law enforcement. The Globe highlights a note taken by an MIT library staffer who noted that it was "now a federal case" and "All we provide is by choice -- not subpoenaed." Even more damning, a senior MIT network engineer basically seemed to think he was now working for the DOJ:

That cooperation with law enforcement also extended to a senior MIT network engineer who monitored traffic to and from Swartz’s laptop and appeared to be looking to Pickett for instructions. On Jan. 5, having collected 70 gigabytes of network traffic, he e-mailed the agent, “I was just wondering what the next step is.”

The documents also demonstrate that MIT employees "prodded JSTOR to get answers for prosecutors more quickly -- before a subpoena had been issued." That hardly seems "neutral."

The report also notes that MIT -- as admitted by an internal investigation -- "paid little attention to the details of the charge" including the key fact that the CFAA charge depended on this being "unauthorized access." However, since MIT's network was wide open to guests, it was hard to say that it was unauthorized. Yet MIT did little to explain that to prosecutors.

The report also delves into JSTOR's side of things, suggesting that, contrary to its public stance, before Swartz was revealed, it too was pretty angry (often at MIT) and considered calling in law enforcement repeatedly. However, in the end it appears that cooler heads prevailed there, as the organization decided not to pursue those actions. If only the same had happened at MIT.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, doj, mit, prosecution, stephen heymann
Companies: jstor, mit

Aaron Swartz Explains Why The NSA Needs To Be Stopped

from the from-beyond-the-grave dept

Last week, when we wrote about the big "day of action" against the NSA in memory of Aaron Swartz, to be held February 11th, a few folks questioned whether this was an appropriate issue, since they were unaware of Aaron being all that concerned about the NSA. Obviously, Aaron died months before the Snowden leaks, but as many folks who knew Aaron knew, the NSA was absolutely an issue he was quite concerned about even prior to the Snowden leaks. Brian Knappenberger, who has been working to put the finishing touches on his new documentary about Aaron, The Internet's Own Boy, in order to debut it at Sundance, has released an astounding trailer of the film (which looks amazing). Included in it, are multiple clips of Aaron actually speaking out about the NSA and surveillance, mainly focused on the NSA saying it can't possibly calculate how many Americans it's spying on, because to do so, would be either (a) impossible or (b) would violate their privacy (yes, at one point, they actually said figuring out how many people are being spied on would violate their privacy). So, yes, Aaron was quite concerned about the NSA, and it makes you wonder just how much we all lost in his death, because you have to expect that, as with SOPA, Aaron would have been an instrumental force in fighting back against the NSA as its overreach and abuses have been exposed. If you haven't yet, please go check out TheDayWeFightBack.org to learn more about the day of action.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, brian knappenberger, nsa, privacy, surveillance

Members Of Congress Ask Eric Holder To Try Again In His Explanation Of The Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz

from the this-time,-with-some-reality-involved dept

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the unfortunate passing of Aaron Swartz. Senators John Cornyn and Al Franken, along with Rep. Darryl Issa, have now sent Attorney General Eric Holder yet another request for an explanation concerning the investigation and prosecution of Swartz. This follows on a similar request from last year, but these elected officials note both that the DOJ's response was inadequate, and that it was also contradicted by the eventual report on the prosecution that came out of MIT.

We regret that the information your Department has provided to date has not been satisfactory -- among other things, it painted a picture of prosecutors unwilling or unable to weigh what charges to pursue against a defendant, something which you have instructed federal prosecutors is "among [their] most fundamental duties."

The account also is inconsistent with findings in the report prepared by MIT about the prosecution of Mr. Swartz, dated July 26, 2013 ("MIT Report"). A letter provided by the Department in May states that "the charging and sentencing decisions made by Department. lawyers were properly based on the law and the facts of the case . . . and not on inappropriate considerations, such as Mr. Swartz's exercise of his legal rights as a citizen." The MIT Report indicates that Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann considered other factors in advance of the return of the superseding indictment. He told MIT that "the straw that broke the camel's back" was an internet webpage soliciting signatures on Mr. Swartz's behalf by Demand Progress, an activist group founded by Mr. Swartz.

In other words, despite the claims from Holder that the charges against Aaron were not based on Swartz exercising his right to free speech, Stephen Heymann has since admitted that, in fact, Swartz's friends speaking out on his behalf were what made him decide to try to throw the book at Swartz. The letter points out further claims from Holder that appear to be contradicted by the MIT report and note:

Inconsistencies such as these require serious responses to the original letter, and indeed raise more questions about the prosecution of Mr. Swartz. One year ago, we sought the basis for the U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz's determination that her office's conduct was "appropriate." We have received no such information, not even the sentencing memoranda that surely were prepared in a case such as this.

In March, you testified that Mr. Swartz's case was "a good use of prosecutorial discretion." We respectfully disagree. We hope your response to this letter is fulsome, which would help re-build confidence about the willingness of the Department to examine itself where prosecutorial conduct is concerned.

Given how Holder and the DOJ have responded to these issues in the past, I wouldn't expect any real response to be forthcoming any time soon.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, al franken, darrell issa, doj, eric holder, john cornyn, prosecution, stephen heymann

In Memory Of Aaron Swartz, A Day Of Action Against The NSA

from the speak-up,-speak-out dept

A bunch of websites and organizations are teaming up today to announce a day of action against mass surveillance in honor of the passing of Aaron Swartz. It calls out to those who fought back against SOPA to now join in this effort as well -- as Aaron was deeply involved in both issues.

DEAR USERS OF THE INTERNET,

In January 2012 we defeated the SOPA and PIPA censorship legislation with the largest Internet protest in history. A year ago this month one of that movement's leaders, Aaron Swartz, tragically passed away.

Today we face a different threat, one that undermines the Internet, and the notion that any of us live in a genuinely free society: mass surveillance.

If Aaron were alive, he'd be on the front lines, fighting against a world in which governments observe, collect, and analyze our every digital action.

Now, on the eve of the anniversary of Aaron's passing, and in celebration of the win against SOPA and PIPA that he helped make possible, we are announcing a day of protest against mass surveillance, to take place this February 11th.

The idea is to use the 11th of February as a day similar to the big SOPA blackout day from two years ago. Except, rather than fighting to stop just a specific bill, this is designed to be a day to get the internet to speak out against mass surveillance. Check out the website at TheDayWeFightBack.com, and please consider supporting this and taking part.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, activism, day of action, nsa, surveillance

Senator Leahy Tries To Sneak Through Plans To Make Merely Talking About Computer Hacking A Serious Crime

from the that's-not-good dept

You may have heard about the recent high-profile, malicious hack of Target's point of sale systems, giving the attackers access to the details of at least 40 million credit cards. Senator Patrick Leahy is, incredibly cynically, using this news event to try to sneak through a change to the "anti-hacking" law, the CFAA, which was used to prosecute Aaron Swartz and many others. And it's not a change to improve that law, but to broaden it, extending massively how the DOJ can charge just about anyone they want with serious computer crimes. This is monumentally bad, and Senator Leahy is trying to hide it behind a major news event because he knows he couldn't get this kind of DOJ wishlist through without hiding it.

Officially, this is Leahy reintroducing his Personal Data Privacy and Security Act -- a bill he's tried to introduce a number of times before. The crux of that bill makes some sense: requiring companies that have had a security breach to inform those who were impacted. State laws (most notably, California's) already include some similar requirements, but this is an attempt to create a federal law on that front. There are some reasonable concerns about such a law, but the general idea of better protecting the public from data breaches, by at least letting them know about it, is an idea worth considering.

The problem is that Leahy has inserted a couple of other dangerous bits and pieces into the bill, including a couple of "reforms" to the parts of the CFAA that have raised significant concerns, and burying them deep within this bill. Section 105 of the bill, for example, simply repeats the same change that the House Judiciary tried to include last year in an attempt at bad CFAA reform. It's basically part of the DOJ's wishlist, changing the CFAA to make you guilty of violating the law if you merely "conspire or attempt to commit" the offense, rather than if you actually do commit the offense. It may be difficult to understand if you just read the proposed bill (this is on purpose), but the bill says it wants to include the term "for the completed offense" so that the CFAA now reads:

Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided for the completed offense in subsection (c) of this section.

Right now, the law does not include those four words. Why is that a big change? As we explained last year:

All they did was add the "for the completed offense," to that sentence. That may seem like a minor change at first, but it would now mean that they can claim that anyone who talked about doing something ("conspires to commit") that violates the CFAA shall now be punished the same as if they had "completed" the offense. And, considering just how broad the CFAA is, think about how ridiculous that might become.

While the proposed bill does include a further change that notes that merely violating a terms of service agreement does not make you subject to the CFAA, it's not just the TOS issue that concerns so many people about the CFAA.

The CFAA needs to be greatly scaled back, not expanded, no matter what the DOJ wants. It's ridiculous that Senator Leahy is not only proposing this, but then trying to hide it in this bill about security breach reporting, tying it to a news event.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, cfaa, conspiracy, criminal, data breach, patrick leahy
Companies: target

Aaron Swartz's Final Project: Secure Whistleblower Submission Platform Gets New Support

from the and-a-detailed-security-audit dept

Back in May, we wrote about Aaron Swartz's final project, done in collaboration with Wired's Kevin Poulsen, to create a very secure platform to allow whistleblowers to anonymously submit documents to the press. At the time it was called DeadDrop, and the initial media partner was The New Yorker, which set up its version as Strongbox. It's unclear if anyone's actually used Strongbox, but obviously since that launch there's been renewed attention concerning leakers and whistleblowers, and ways to leak information safely.

Today it was announced that the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an offshoot of the EFF which we've covered before, has taken over the project, now dubbed SecureDrop. Besides having the support of the Foundation to help with development and deployment of the platform, they've also announced that the system has gone through a significant security audit by some of the most respected names in the business, leading to a few additional improvements:

SecureDrop’s code has gone through a detailed security audit by a team of University of Washington researchers, led by Alexei Czeckis. Other authors of the audit include renowned security expert Bruce Schneier and Tor developer Jacob Appelbaum. Freedom of the Press Foundation has made a number of updates to SecureDrop based on these findings and will be making a significant investment in continually improving the system.  

On top of that the Foundation has hired computer security expert James Dolan to maintain the code and to help install the system for media organizations. He helped do the original installation of StrongBox for the New Yorker. Hopefully a bunch of media organizations look into using this system, as it will help provide better ways to protect whistleblowers, especially in an age where they're under such constant attack from the government.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, freedom of the press, journalism, securedrop, security, whistleblowers
Companies: freedom of the press foundation

Secret Service Interviewed Aaron Swartz's Friends About Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

from the because-that-must-be-evil,-right? dept

For a while it has been stated, without direct evidence, that part of the reason why the feds were so focused on Aaron Swartz was because of the now infamous Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, which Aaron Swartz had posted online years ago (there is some question as to whether Aaron wrote the whole thing himself, or co-authored it with others...). The feds seemed to take that as some sort of proof that Swartz was downloading JSTOR articles to release them for free online, though one would hope they had a lot more evidence than a random internet rant from many years ago. Either way, as part of Kevin Poulsen's FOIA request for the Secret Service files on Aaron Swartz -- files that are being fought over in court -- the first 100 pages have been released, with another 14,400 or so to go.

There really isn't that much interesting in the documents, as they mostly focus on items seized via search warrants. However, there are two interesting tidbits, both highlighted by Poulsen in his article. The first is more evidence that the feds really did think that the Open Access Manifesto was a key bit of evidence in the case. The documents (towards the very end) include very heavily redacted passages from interviews done by the Secret Service and Cambridge police of at least two individuals, and in both cases there are questions asked (and answered) about the manifesto. In one, a woman notes that Swartz had started a Google Group called Guerilla Open Access. For what it's worth, this Google Group used to exist over here, but disappeared a long time ago. Another interview involves a male friend of Swartz, who was asked about the manifesto and said he read it and became interested in the ideas in it, though he never spoke to Swartz about whether or not Swartz actually wrote it. The friend did tell the Secret Service that "They believe that the open access movement is a human rights issue."

Of course, it's hard to see how the open access movement isn't a human rights issue in many ways, though that doesn't automatically mean that everyone supports copying and releasing all works.

The other interesting thing in the document concerns when the search warrant was finally executed for Swartz's apartment. As had been noted earlier, for reasons that still are murky, the search warrant wasn't executed until about a month after Swartz was arrested, and many people have questioned the timing on that. The report notes that Swartz himself seemed reasonably annoyed that his home was searched and items seized a month after the whole thing happened.

Swartz was home at the time the search was executed. While the search was conducted, Swartz made statements to the effect of, what took you so long, and why didn't you do this earlier?

The report also mentions that the agents saw Swartz walk out to the street and then "sprint away," later catching up to him at his office at Harvard. There's really not that much detail here, but interesting to see that the feds really did seem so focused on the manifesto. I'm sure there will be other interesting findings if the other documents are released -- and not completely redacted. It really does seem bizarre to have so many redactions, given that the case is now completely over.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, guerilla open access manifesto, open access, secret service

DOJ Decided To Ratchet Up Case Against Aaron Swartz Because He Spoke Out Publicly About Being Innocent

from the vindictive-doj dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the MIT report concerning the case against Aaron Swartz. A number of people have picked up on some really questionable things in the report. One incredible claim made in it was that Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, who was running the prosecution against Swartz, apparently admitted that he really only ramped up his efforts against Swartz to punish Swartz and the organization he founded, Demand Progress, for having the audacity to discuss the case publicly and explain why Swartz believed he didn't do anything wrong. Here's the passage from the report:

The prosecutor said that, pre-indictment, he had wanted to approach the case on a human level, not punitively. To this extent he made an extremely reasonable proposal, and was "dumb-founded" by Swartz's response.

The prosecutor said that the straw that broke the camel's back was that when he indicted the case, and allowed Swartz to come to the courthouse as opposed to being arrested, Swartz used the time to post a "wild Internet campaign" in an effort to drum up support. This was a "foolish" move that moved the case "from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level." The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally

MIT used this to explain why it thought that any public statements it might make in support of Swartz would make the case worse for him, because Heymann, in his petty vindictive mind, might view it as a further "wild" public campaign by Swartz. Leaving aside that this makes absolutely no sense at all, the actions of Heymann are particularly despicable here, suggesting that merely professing your innocence to crimes that you believe you are innocent of, should lead to much greater prosecution.

This passage has now caught the attention of Rep. Darrell Issa, and he is asking Attorney General Eric Holder about whether or not the DOJ directly comes down hard on those who exercise their First Amendment rights in the face of questionable prosecutions:

"The implication that the Department ratcheted up the prosecution by moving the case to 'an institutional level' after it discovered the petition by Demand Progress suggests that the Department acted in a retaliatory manner and that it bases its charging decisions on externalities such as an Internet campaign," Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, wrote in his letter to Holder.

"The suggestions that prosecutors did in fact seek to make an example out of Aaron Swartz because Demand Progress exercised its First Amendment rights in publicly supporting him raises new questions about the Department's handling of the case," Issa wrote.

A separate point that comes out in the report that is equally as absurd was that Heymann believed that the case required some jail time as punishment because it "involves the unauthorized downloading of intellectual property that cost millions of dollars to create." This is ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, MIT made those works freely available to anyone on campus, so the argument that it was "unauthorized" remains very questionable. Second, the "cost millions of dollars to create" argument is simply laughable. Nearly all of that was publicly funded by taxpayer money, which is supposed to lead to the enrichment of public learning and knowledge -- the exact thing that Swartz appeared to be focused on. This ridiculous belief that he needed to be put in prison because of the monetary cost of creating these educational works is astounding. And sad, given the eventual outcome.

It's no secret that the DOJ often seems to think that "intellectual property" laws are designed to protect the moneyed interests of copyright holders, but that's not what the Constitution or the law says. At the very least, the people hired as US Attorney's to represent the US government should know better than to ratchet up prosecution for people who are expressing their First Amendment rights and doing things that directly align with the Constitutional reasons for copyright law.

Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann is a disgrace to the Constitution he's supposed to be defending.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, darrell issa, free speech, innocence, mit, prosecution, stephen heymann

MIT Defends Its 'Neutral' Stance On Aaron Swartz As 'Reasonable' Even As It Failed To Understand Importance Of The Case

from the sometimes-remaining-neutral-is-a-bad-thing dept

It's taken some time, but the report that MIT's President requested from professor Hal Abelson concerning MIT's roles in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz has now been released. It's quite detailed and well worth reading. The "bottom line" is that it argues that MIT did its best to "stay neutral" throughout the entire process, and that this was a perfectly reasonable legal strategy, though, possibly not the best ethical strategy. MIT's President, Rafael Reif, has issued a letter with the report, stating that "I am confident that MIT's decisions were reasonable, appropriate and made in good faith." Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman quickly hit back, arguing that the claim that MIT was "neutral" is not very convincing:

MIT’s behavior throughout the case was reprehensible, and this report is quite frankly a whitewash.

Here are the facts: This report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. That’s not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly, “We don’t want this prosecution to go forward” – and Steve Heymann and Carmen Ortiz would have had no case.

Separately, she contrasts MIT's behavior with JSTOR's -- the organization which really had the only legitimate (and even then a weak legitimacy) claim to any "harm" from Swartz's actions. JSTOR very publicly made it known that it did not support the prosecution and did not wish to see Swartz prosecuted. MIT took a very different approach. From the summary of the paper:

MIT never requested that a criminal prosecution be brought against Aaron Swartz. Early in the prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston (the “USAO”), MIT adopted a position of remaining neutral, with limited involvement. MIT hired outside counsel who had experience in criminal law and in the functioning of the Boston U.S. Attorney’s Office; and MIT requested and received subpoenas for the production of documents. Some documents were turned over to the USAO prior to receiving a subpoena, but, for the reasons discussed in this report, this production did not violate federal laws.

In keeping with its stance of neutrality, MIT never issued a public statement about Swartz’s prosecution or advocated publicly on his behalf, even though doing this was urged by Aaron Swartz’s family and legal team and by two members of the faculty. One of the reasons for MIT’s silence was the good-faith belief, based on private conversations with the lead prosecutor, that the Institute’s opinion would have no effect on the prosecution, and that public statements might make circumstances worse for Aaron Swartz. MIT did inform the prosecution that it was not seeking punishment for Swartz, and it did inform the defense that it was not seeking any civil remedy from him.

The report also claims that, basically, no one in "the MIT community" seemed to care about the story until after Swartz's death, which seems like a bit of a cop out. Also, there's this:

MIT took the position that U.S. v. Swartz was simply a lawsuit to which it was not a party, although it did inform the U.S. Attorney’s Office that the prosecution should not be under the impression that MIT wanted jail time for Aaron Swartz. (MIT did not say it was actually opposed to jail time.)

Basically, this policy of "neutrality" may have been legally reasonable, but could still be seen as highly questionable given MIT's role as an institution of higher learning -- one that famously encourages open exploration and sharing of knowledge and information, as well as some element of hacking. I think David Weinberger makes the right point here:

When Pres. Reif writes that MIT’s actions were “reasonable, appropriate and made in good faith” I think we have to ask “Appropriate to what?” To MIT’s interests as a legal entity? Very likely. To MIT as a university? Not in my book.... MIT’s timid “neutrality” wasted an opportunity to stand against the unreasonable and inappropriate tactics of the prosecutors, and to stand for the spirit of inquiry, openness, innovation, and risk-taking that has made MIT one of the world’s great universities.

I understand that MIT wasn’t going to say that it was fine with Aaron’s breaching its contract with JSTOR. But MIT could have stood against prosecutorial overreach, and for the values— if not the exact actions— Aaron embodied.

That's exactly right. Sometimes taking a neutral stance on an issue of great importance is the equivalent of making the wrong choice. MIT missed the boat here.

Separately, Larry Lessig makes an important point: buried in the report is the fact that prosecutors never bothered to ask MIT if Swartz's access was unauthorized, even as they charged him with unauthorized access, and used that as the key to pressing the case:

As far as the Review Panel could determine, MIT was never asked by either the prosecution or the defense whether Aaron Swartz’s access to the MIT network was authorized or unauthorized—nor did MIT ask this of itself. Given that (1) MIT was the alleged victim of counts 9 and 12, (2) the MIT access policy, its Rules of Use, and its own interpretation of those Rules of Use (including the significance or “materiality” of any violation of those terms) were at the heart of the government’s CFAA allegations in counts in both indictments, and (3) this policy and these rules were written, interpreted, and applied by MIT for MIT’s own mission and goals—not those of the Government— the Review Panel wonders why.

As Lessig points out, this makes the tragedy of the situation even worse. Not only did MIT try to take a "neutral stance," nobody either at MIT nor among the prosecutors ever even bothered to figure out if Swartz's access really was unauthorized.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, cfaa, hal abelson, mit, neutral, rafael reif, unauthorized access

MIT Trying To Block The Release Of Aaron Swartz's Secret Service File

from the sharing-of-knowledge dept

It's not all that uncommon to see government agencies try to refuse to release information that is subject to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request -- but to have a non-governmental third party jump into a FOIA request to seek to block the info from being released? That's pretty damn rare. But it's happened -- and, amazingly, the third party is MIT, a school that is supposedly dedicated to advancing knowledge. Except, apparently, if that knowledge is going to make MIT look bad.

We recently noted that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had ordered Homeland Security to release the Secret Service file on Aaron Swartz that had been requested by Wired reporter/editor Kevin Poulsen. However, MIT has now stepped into the case trying to block the release of the information. The judge has consented to putting a stay on the initial order until MIT can file its motion.

MIT's concern -- as it was in a separate legal fight concerning releasing the evidence used against Aaron -- is apparently that the released documents will reveal which MIT employees helped with the investigation, and that could lead to unwarranted harassment. However, as Poulsen notes, the documents that have already been released have been redacting those names, so it's unlikely that these further releases would leave those same names unredacted.

The larger issue, however, is that an institute of higher learning, one which supposedly supports information sharing and knowledge transfer, is intervening in a FOIA case to actively support keeping information from the public. This is quite incredible, and a rather shameful move from the MIT administration, following a string of similarly shameful moves having to do with how it handled the Swartz situation from the very beginning. As Poulsen notes, the situation is incredibly rare:

I have never, in fifteen years of reporting, seen a non-governmental party argue for the right to interfere in a Freedom of Information Act release of government documents. My lawyer, David Sobel, has been litigating FOIA for decades, and he’s never encountered it either. It’s saddening to see an academic institution set this precedent.

MIT was one of the first universities to support open online courses. It has a long history of encouraging the open exchange and sharing of knowledge and information. It seems like quite a departure from its history and mission to suddenly focus on trying to increase the government's secrecy and blocking access to information.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, foia, homeland security, mit, public information