Slashdot Mirror

Wanna know what I do when I meet a religious extremist? I do a little nice gesture, that makes their life better, and causes them to instantly like me.

You mean like Nick Berg?

When former Miss Vermont, Katy Johnson, read Tucker Max's graphic account of their stormy relationship, she sued, winning a temporary injunction that is about to be challenged. What makes this case so interesting is that both parties use their real names as brand extensions to sell themselves and related products. Both parties attended law school, and both have authored books that are published. Both rely on their looks to promote their image. Both have appeared on different programs on MTV, and both are lightning rods for controversy.

Tucker Max breaks his silence since the injunction in an exclusive interview with Annoy.com's Clinton Fein. In addition to publishing all the legal documents filed in the case, Annoy.com, after much consideration, has also published the original account of Tucker Maxâ(TM)s relationship with Katy Johnson. We are not affiliated nor associated with Mr. Max in any way. Our visceral aversion to careless and unconstitutional prior restraints by Judges prompted our decision.

As long as you are not actually hosting the illegal software, this SHOULD be covered under the first amendment. Of course, you'd actually end up in jail.

Annoy Can't agree with everything he says (click past the shocker intro), but you've got to admit that he has guts...

Annoy.com has a great editorial that sums up how impossible it will be to enforce this.

Harmful to Minors
.politicians

A snippet

Amidst this wonderful montage of human intelligence, a savior emerged from the ashes of the World Trade Center and flattened compounds in Ramallah to save the children where everyone else has failed. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.

After presumably soiling the couch watching a Lifetime Original Movie "Video Voyeur," about a woman in Louisiana, Susan Wilson, who discovered after she was secretly taped that there was no law against such an act, Landrieu introduced a bill that would make secretly videotaping a person in intimate situations without their consent a federal crime -- punishable by up to three years in prison in case of adult victims, and up to ten years in prison when a child is involved.

"Susan Wilson had to learn the hard way that a high-tech invasion of privacy wasn't against the law in Louisiana-- or any other state," said Senator Landrieu in a press release issued by her office, along with photo ops with the victim and actress who played her. "She's fought to make changes in Louisiana's laws so that victims in Louisiana can pursue a legal remedy. But there shouldn't have to be a Susan Wilson in every state in order for people to be protected from this kind of horrifying event. I hope this legislation will act as a deterrent-- but if it doesn't, at least victims will have the strength of federal law behind them."

Lost in the air kisses, tears, smudged mascara and flash photography -- and offered as a mere afterthought in the Senator's press release -- was the meat of the bill, insidiously entitled, the "Family Privacy and Protection Act." The bill would set up an Internet domain (such as .prn) for material harmful to minors and require all websites containing such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close down those sites and move to the new domain.

Reading the language of a new bill carefully, some things remain predictably the same. Politicians with no clue about technology and a penchant for publicity at the expense of children, will keep American children about as safe as hiring Osama bin Laden as a babysitter or confiscating toenail clippers from grandmothers in Oklahoma.

Landrieu's legislation specifically prohibits one from videotaping "for a lewd or lascivious purpose" only. So if you videotape, without her consent, her plying a dildo up her butt without having douched, and use the imagery as an appetite deterrent, you're not guilty of any privacy violations.

Rest of piece is at http://annoy.com/editorials/doc.html?DocumentID=10 0332

Annoy.com has a great editorial that sums up how impossible it will be to enforce this.

Harmful to Minors
.politicians

A snippet

Amidst this wonderful montage of human intelligence, a savior emerged from the ashes of the World Trade Center and flattened compounds in Ramallah to save the children where everyone else has failed. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.

After presumably soiling the couch watching a Lifetime Original Movie "Video Voyeur," about a woman in Louisiana, Susan Wilson, who discovered after she was secretly taped that there was no law against such an act, Landrieu introduced a bill that would make secretly videotaping a person in intimate situations without their consent a federal crime -- punishable by up to three years in prison in case of adult victims, and up to ten years in prison when a child is involved.

"Susan Wilson had to learn the hard way that a high-tech invasion of privacy wasn't against the law in Louisiana-- or any other state," said Senator Landrieu in a press release issued by her office, along with photo ops with the victim and actress who played her. "She's fought to make changes in Louisiana's laws so that victims in Louisiana can pursue a legal remedy. But there shouldn't have to be a Susan Wilson in every state in order for people to be protected from this kind of horrifying event. I hope this legislation will act as a deterrent-- but if it doesn't, at least victims will have the strength of federal law behind them."

Lost in the air kisses, tears, smudged mascara and flash photography -- and offered as a mere afterthought in the Senator's press release -- was the meat of the bill, insidiously entitled, the "Family Privacy and Protection Act." The bill would set up an Internet domain (such as .prn) for material harmful to minors and require all websites containing such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close down those sites and move to the new domain.

Reading the language of a new bill carefully, some things remain predictably the same. Politicians with no clue about technology and a penchant for publicity at the expense of children, will keep American children about as safe as hiring Osama bin Laden as a babysitter or confiscating toenail clippers from grandmothers in Oklahoma.

Landrieu's legislation specifically prohibits one from videotaping "for a lewd or lascivious purpose" only. So if you videotape, without her consent, her plying a dildo up her butt without having douched, and use the imagery as an appetite deterrent, you're not guilty of any privacy violations.

Rest of piece is at http://annoy.com/editorials/doc.html?DocumentID=10 0332

There are a few reasons for this. The fact that it is "too convenient" is one of them. Also consider the fact that the reps I elect (from Florida) don't give a rat's ass what someone in Deleware thinks they should do. And with email there really isn't anything like a postmark to give evidence that the person writing has any impact on whether you get re-elected or not. So say a representative gets 4000 letters all from his district. That says something. 4000 emails from Alaska, Hawaii, Sweden, wherever don't really say much. And of course they aren't going to be arsed to try to determine where it came from by the ISP in the return-path, unless it was threatening.

Oh, and of course there are also other reasons why email isn't going to carry as much weight as paper at least for a little while.

Fist Prost

"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."

Why, you may ask? Bill Clinton and congress passed a law recently making it a felony to annoy them! Of all the fucking nerve. Supported, no less, by a whole bunch of folk, who in our opinion, are fucking indecent and annoying themselves - to say the least. So now it's payback time. We bring you the perfect tool to annoy them back! And as often as you like!

Some might call it subversive. We call it democracy.

They do **NOT** keep track of their users!!!. Per the bolded text I have quoted above from the annoy.com web site (can be seen here ) Chances are, that is why "the Man" (aka the government) got so pissed off and started this entire proceeding.

- J

Why, you may ask? Bill Clinton and congress passed a law recently making it a felony to annoy them! Of all the fucking nerve. Supported, no less, by a whole bunch of folk, who in our opinion, are fucking indecent and annoying themselves - to say the least. So now it's payback time. We bring you the perfect tool to annoy them back! And as often as you like!

Some might call it subversive. We call it democracy.

I found the above text at a link on the annoy.com web site here .

To me, this passage immediately brings **TWO** questions to mind:

The first question is easy to answer, (a) because they can and (B) because it is good for publicity (which equals traffic). Additionally, I personally like this idea because it pushes the limits of free speech. You know, the first amendment...the one that the government attempts to walk on CONSTANTLY.

The second question, however, has left me puzzled. When in the fuck and, more to the point, why in the fuck was a law limiting MY access to sending prominent political entities written communications created and passed through legislature. I apologize for my vulgarity, but this is one topic that really upsets me. How can we call ourselves a democracy if we limit people from communicating their views to the elected officials in power. Then there are the questions of who decides what is "annoying" or "harassing"??? What are the penalties??? Was the government attempting to identify the "anonymous user" who wrote the letter in question to seek prosecution???

All in all, I suppose I should be surprised. If the government can order a business to keep secret that fact that they are being persecuted, what would ever lead me to believe that I have a right to communicate to the people I helped get elected.

- Pissed Off J

Individual uses service to send threat. (not cool)

Annoy.com's claim was that the Police/Authorities did nothing to establish that the communication in question was in fact a threat, and not just a joke. If you read the original card, while crude, vulgar, offensive, and perhaps harrassing, it makes no reference to force, only to sexual activities. Not that I'd be happy to receive something similar.

Police/Authorities ask that proceedings be 'closed' so that investigation can proceed without individual learning of it. (cool, it's under the eye of the judiciary, and ISP/Annoy has ability to comment/be-involved in legal proceedings to protect their anonymous users from un-necessary discloser)

Prosecutors asked that the proceedings be closed forever, and not just that they're investigating some alleged threat, but every aspect of the case. Why didn't the prosecutors ask that the identities of the parties involved, and perhaps the exact nature of the threat, be closed for a limited time (how long did they expect to be investigating this alleged threat)?

And Annoy.com was not allowed access to parts of the prosecution's legal arguments about why Annoy.com should comply. In other words, they were told that if they wanted to respond, they had to do so blind-folded!

A YEAR LATER, police/authorities drop request, as it's now way too late to be useful. (damn unfortunate)

I found no mention of when the prosecutors dropped their request, but my impression was that they lost interest in pursuing the original investigation after much less than a year, while still maintaining that Annoy.com was not allowed to talk about it (perhaps a matter of saving face?).

Bunch of people foaming at the mouth display their ignorance of anything deeper than 'obvious' by raving and rantin on about how 'injust' it is that the proceedings were 'hidden'. (lamers).

It was unjust that the gag order was indefinite and overly broad, when arguably a much narrower gag order would have sufficed. After all, if Annoy.com publicly said "investigators want the identity of one of our users whom they claim threatened someone", do you really think that would narrow things down enough to tip off the subject of the investigation, given the sort of people who apparently use Annoy.com in such huge numbers?

Apparently it was all about a this greeting card sent to some unknown person. Subsequently the local and federal government jumped through hoops to get the identity of the sender.

In addition, they playerd a lot of dirty tricks to issue this gag order.

So who the hell was it that received this greeting card? Obviously it was somone really important.

Quote: "Then there were the politics of privacy and the Internet that interestingly relates to the upcoming Presidential election. Privacy is a front page issue that has provoked the attention of the candidates for President of the United States, one of whom is a member of the Administration that sought and defended the order and gag order, the other is from the very state and city where federal and local officials joined efforts to deploy federal investigative resources regarding an unpleasant communication aimed at a local person."

Can you say conspiracy?!?

Theoretically, Apollo could reveal the identity of the person who received the greeting card, but they don't probably because they want to look righteous:

"We said then, as we do now, that we would use our own journalistic integrity and moral judgment to make such a determination rather than be compelled to do so by an order of the court. And today, we continue to choose to refrain from publishing the name of the alleged victim, despite having fought and won the right to do so."

Anybody want to dig up this dirt where Apollo won't?

wildmage

I think maybe you should look at what was actually sent first. Might change your opinions a bit. Tasteless and irritating, but hardly threatening.

Now we know who the foul mouth biggots are! Granted, I have a few unkind words about operating systems that suck, but they were outright offensive and abusive with those comments. Those comments contain no useful content and are 100% crap. You cannot reason with pointless profanity. It just annoys and serves no real purpose.