MIT investigates matters brought up during Aaron Swartz inquiry

MIT investigates matters brought up during Aaron Swartz inquiry

MIT Moves Forward with Electronic Records and Data Privacy Recommendations, but No Specific Policies Detailed

MIT is taking steps to implement recommendations made by a working group regarding electronic records and data privacy, following the endorsement of the Academic Council. However, as of July 2025, there are no publicly detailed policies specifically linked to Executive Vice President and Treasurer Israel Ruiz’s review, which was prompted by questions raised in the Abelson Report.

The Abelson Report, which analysed MIT's actions in the Aaron Swartz case, was published in July 2013. In response, President L. Rafael Reif asked Hal Abelson and Peter Diamond to conduct the review. The report concluded with a set of questions for the MIT community to consider, including questions about open access, intellectual property, and ethics in the digital domain.

Reif then charged Chris Kaiser and Steven Hall with convening members of the MIT community to discuss the broadest questions raised by the Abelson Report. Attendees at the subsequent faculty and graduate-student meetings expressed a desire for clarity from the administration about its stance on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and whether it would help protect students who might become targets of criminal prosecution.

Steve Gass was asked to address the question from the Abelson Report concerning MIT's commitment to open access. Gass suggested that MIT consider creating a new faculty body to lead the open-access effort and explore new models of journal publishing. The suggestions and recommendations made by the group led by Gass are being submitted to the Faculty Policy Committee for consideration in its review of MIT's open-access policy.

The working group led by Ruiz is now considering the membership for the presidential committee on electronic records and online data privacy, and it is expected that the committee will convene early this spring. The group also recommended that MIT form a standing presidential committee on electronic records and online data privacy.

Since the passage of MIT's open-access policy in 2009, MIT Libraries have deposited about 37 percent of faculty members' papers into DSpace@MIT, resulting in over 1.6 million downloads. The digital repository is used for research storage and sharing but without explicit policy references.

It is worth noting that the search results did mention recent developments in electronic document automation from Microsoft, unrelated to MIT’s internal policies, as well as reports published by MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDE), but no direct connection to policy changes on privacy or records management was found.

For those seeking precise current MIT policy details, consulting official MIT governance resources or direct communications from the MIT administration would be necessary, as this information is not reflected in the indexed search data.

1. The MIT administration is yet to release specific policies related to electronic records and data privacy, as detailed by Executive Vice President and Treasurer Israel Ruiz's review.
2. The Abelson Report, published in 2013, highlighted questions about open access, intellectual property, and ethics in the digital domain at MIT.
3. President L. Rafael Reif asked Chris Kaiser and Steven Hall to convene members of the MIT community to discuss the broadest questions raised by the Abelson Report.
4. The faculty and graduate-student meetings expressed a desire for clarity from the administration about its stance on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
5. Steve Gass was tasked with addressing the question from the Abelson Report concerning MIT's commitment to open access.
6. Gass suggested creating a new faculty body to lead the open-access effort and explore new models of journal publishing.
7. The working group led by Ruiz is considering the membership for the presidential committee on electronic records and online data privacy.
8. MIT Libraries have deposited about 37 percent of faculty members' papers into DSpace@MIT, but this digital repository lacks explicit policy references.
9. Recent developments in electronic document automation from Microsoft are not directly connected to MIT’s internal policies on privacy or records management.
10. Reports published by MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society are also not directly linked to policy changes on privacy or records management.
11. For detailed current MIT policies, individuals are advised to consult official MIT governance resources or communicate directly with the MIT administration.

Read also: