Institutional Loyalty
In 2011 Aaron Swartz, was arrested for
downloading nearly five million files from JSTOR, a digital library of mass academic
journals, by infiltrating a network on the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology campus. Swartz was caught on camera by MIT when he was re-entering
the network closet to replace the storage devices he was using at the time to
hold the downloaded information. Swartz believed that information should not be
wholesaled, especially when the research for the journals were funded by tax
dollars. He believed that the information should have been open source, and
available to anyone interested for free. Although he only downloaded these
journals and did not release them MIT saw this as criminal activity. Due to the
lack of institutional leadership and loyalty, the MIT Police quickly concluded
that this bulk downloading was theft before any other possibility. The prosecutors
on this case pushed for the firmest penalties, which could have included a 35
year prison sentence for Swartz, and MIT stood silently by and watched. This
and further troubles led to Swartz taking his own life in 2013.
MIT has a long standing tradition of encouraging
its colleagues to follow their curiosity wherever it may lead them, even if
that’s somewhere they are not authorized. The nation’s leading University
adopts a culture of openness. MIT main lobby doors are always unlocked, and the
computer networks are set up for easy guest access. The concept of sharing
information and the hacker’s ethic was born in their computer labs in the 1950’s
and 60’s, and is still very alive today. Due to this many say that MIT has
Swartz’s blood on its hands. Swartz’s defenders would later argue that he had
guest access to MIT’s network, and that charges to this extent, or at all could
have been avoided. MIT could have asked for the charges to be dropped just like
JSTOR did. Instead, the university chose to remain neutral, and in doing so contradicted
its adopted culture that encourages openness.
How could a university that boasts
about its community of hackers and hackers abilities turn around and let a
member of that community be prosecuted? Every year MIT holds a self-declared
hackathon type event where students and affiliates are asked to show off their
talents and abilities, the results are then posted on MIT’s site and can be
read here.
This begs the question of where MIT’s obligation and/or loyalty reside. Is it
with their self-produced hacker community, or with obsolete and unjust laws? This institution relies on the computer
prodigy’s and the hacker community and should remain loyal to them. They should
not contradictorily prosecute them for their success. Philosopher Josiah Royce
argued that as a member of a group, we share the standards of that group. MIT
is the leader of that group, and should set equal standards for all while
reaming loyal to that culture. Royce also argued that loyalty gives security,
and offers ready-made standards. This holds very true to this case. MIT should
have remained loyal to Swartz and his quest, and recognized him as a member of
their own hacker community and protected him from prosecution. Another philosopher,
W.E.B. DuBois also argued that values are bound up with social group identity. We
are members of a nation first, then of a culture, and then a subculture, and we
may adopt values consistent with loyalty to those groups. The group in question
here is the hacker community. With being a “hacker” there is a hacker ethic or
philosophy that is adopted. The vital topics within this ethic are access,
freedom of information, and improvement to quality of life. This is what Swartz
was striving for, and MIT put a stop to.
In 2013, MIT hinted that they could have handled the case
better and is now considering internal reforms. The institute is changing how
they handle network infractions, and plan on handling the issues internally.
John Riser was a philosopher that took a stance on obligation to society and
loyalty to community. He argued that obligation is displayed toward rules or
requirements of formalized roles stemming from a membership in society. I
believe that MIT should have been obligated to take a stance in the Swartz case
to protect the community it creates. Instead they remained silent and in the
process of doing so, the community tragically lost a valuable member. Now, MIT is obligated to change course to
remain a respectable, working member in that community.
Sources:
Great job! I think you hit all the points that guideline required.
ReplyDeleteGreat job, you described the case very well, made your ideas and points of view very clear and used philosophers to back it up,
ReplyDeleteOverall I think this very well developed case,
I never viewed this case this way until now. I always stuck to stealing is stealing regardless of intention. You made very strong points in institution's loyalty though. Very well-written!
ReplyDelete