Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.
kcurtis writes "According to the Boston Globe article, a federal judge is refusing to reveal the identities of 23 chat room users accused by a bankrupt dot-com of posting critical messages to drive its stock price down. About time."
You notice the number of conspirato, err, posters was 23. The judge recognized this, as this was obviously a ploy by the Illuminati to hurt this company for not toeing the line in their part of the NWO.
It was all just a big conspiracy, and the judge let them off to save his own neck.
Zilly said Thursday he agreed with 2TheMart attorneys that ``rights to speak anonymously are not unlimited.'' But he said the company's reasons for wanting the names were not sufficient, saying the firm made no direct claim against the users, except for ``innuendo'' they had manipulated the stock.
This appears to imply that if they wanted to charge the users with some sort of criminal conduct, they would reveal the names. Being semi-anonymous doesn't give people the right (or the ability) to break the law. I'm not implying they did, but if they were being charged, the authorities will do their best to discover their identities, and, if (as in this case) they are known, they will release them -- no matter how much "right to anonymous speech" people think they have. The reason they weren't released is because the judge wasn't convinced the need for their names was great enough, and they weren't being charged with anything, but simply used as evidence.
-Puk
Ruling: Prove Crime First
by
alexhmit01
·
· Score: 4
This doesn't let you break the law and remain anonymous. It says that you can't get the identity so that you can prove the crime. This is VERY important.
Previously, you could file a BS lawsuit against John Doe, then subpeona the identities to identify John Doe. This allowed harassment.
What this does mean, however, is that if the SEC wanted to investigate, they could get the names.
Realize this case: the shareholders are suing that the stock ran up for a company on the verge of bankrupcy. None of the actions of these individuals caused the company to go bankrupt. The company's inability to have Cash>0 did so.
The shareholders aren't suing that the price dropped. And if the company's business plan required a certain stock price, well, that's their problem. Public companies should be able to function regardless of share price.
The judge didn't rule that you can't reveal names, merely that you can't without a compelling reason. If there was evidence of a crime, they'd be released.
For example, if the company compiled a list of short sellers, they could probably give the list to the chat room operators and demand the identities of anyone matching that list.
The burder is on those wishing to reveal the names, as it should be.
A securities firm lends you stock, which you sell immediatly. Suppose stock XYZ is currently at $40 a share. You borrow 100 shares, sell them at $40 each, and get $40,000. Then, at some point in the future, you have to give that firm back 100 shares of XYZ
If the stock goes up to $50 a share, then when you repurchase that stock to give back to the firm, it will cost you $50,000, resulting in a net loss of $10,000.
However, if the stock goes down to $20 a share, then you will make $20,000. Even better, if the company goes bankrupt, the stock becomes worthless, and you make a full $40,000.
People who short stock are known as "bears." This is why a down market is called a "bear market." "Bulls" are those who buy stock the normal way. The statue of a bull and a bear locked in combat in front of the NYSE building, of course, symbolizes the struggle between these two factions in the investment world. The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
-- "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
The Judge's name is Thomas Zilly. 2*3=6, the number of letters in his first name, and 2+3=5, the number of letters in his last name. He is obviously an agent of the Illuminati himself.
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
-- "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Okay, you came right out and said you were trolling, but you are not all that far off the mark.
Publicly trashing companies you want to buy, or talking up companies you are about to sell, is one of the oldest investment scams in the book. The SEC strictly regulates, this sort of behavior. (The guys over at Motley Fool got into quite a fracas ovet this stuff a few years ago... As their old service on AOL became popular, it became a great toold for stock value manipulation: Spread a little FUD about Ford, watch the stock drop, buy low, then go back and fill up the posting boards with glowing praise about how Ford has turned around and is a great value now. Then sell after it bounces back. Rince. Repeat.)
This is why you should never listen to investment advice from anonymous sources. If you hear a rumor that Sun is about to buy Corel, it could easilly be a Corel holder who wants to dump their stock, but is hoping buy-out rumors will cause a small surge in the price.
Were these people scam artists, or just typical opinionated newsgroup posters blowing off steam about a company they disliked?
The line between free speech and illegal market manipulation is not as cut and dried as some people might like to think.
..is why most sites track the information in the first place. For example does Slashdot dispose of all logging for anonymous users within 24 hours, etc? The strange thing is that while many organizations throw their arms up and claim that they're poor victim of a legal system gone awry and they sure wish they could hide the users better, the fact that they've logged away lots of idenfitying information instantly betrays that.
And there is nothing (though note that IANAL) legally requiring these "paper trails" to be logged away by thousands of sites, yet if you do log it then ironically you ARE responsible for it: It's like a self-imposed police state. An example of reaction to this is how a lot of corporations are imposing a "destroy the evidence, before it BECOMES evidence" mandate: Have a policy telling people to delete all emails older than a month/year/whatever, and you have no problems. Leave them hanging around and watch the subpoenas come flying in the door while you provide evidence against yourself about years old skeletons in the closet.
Re:Something I learned a long time ago...
by
Zeinfeld
·
· Score: 3
With that said, if I were to say "Bill Gates is an asshole", he could sue me for defamation of character, however, if I add those three precious words "in my opinion", he cannot touch me no matter how many attorneys he can afford.
Untrue on both counts. In the first place the statement 'Bill Gates is an Asshole" would be defensible in the US since 1) Bill Gates is a public person and 2) the statement is a statement of opinion and not fact.
Simply adding 'in my opinion' does not make it an opinion, nor for that matter does adding the word 'alleged'. Unless a reporter is reporting on an allegation that has already become known stating that an allegation has been made has the same effect as making the allegation.
For example stating 'Bill Gate is a peadophile' would be actionable even if followed by 'in my opinion' or preceeded by 'it is alleged' since it is a statement of fact. Because he is a public persona Gates is considered to have less protection than a private individual would. However the statement would be clearly made 'with actual mallice' so the public interest defence fails.
Of course in the UK there was a time when a man could pay a prostitute $3000 on a London station platform and subsequently be awarded a multimillion dollar award for damages after newspapers alleged that he had sex with the woman. Today said Jeffrey Archer is facing perjury charges at the Old Bailey and if convicted looks like serving a serious stretch of prison.
--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Slashdot Mirror
You notice the number of conspirato, err, posters was 23. The judge recognized this, as this was obviously a ploy by the Illuminati to hurt this company for not toeing the line in their part of the NWO.
It was all just a big conspiracy, and the judge let them off to save his own neck.
You say you want a revolution....
1 for us, 12987398731893271 for corporate america.
put on your rally caps!
BilldaCat
Zilly said Thursday he agreed with 2TheMart attorneys that ``rights to speak anonymously are not unlimited.'' But he said the company's reasons for wanting the names were not sufficient, saying the firm made no direct claim against the users, except for ``innuendo'' they had manipulated the stock.
This appears to imply that if they wanted to charge the users with some sort of criminal conduct, they would reveal the names. Being semi-anonymous doesn't give people the right (or the ability) to break the law. I'm not implying they did, but if they were being charged, the authorities will do their best to discover their identities, and, if (as in this case) they are known, they will release them -- no matter how much "right to anonymous speech" people think they have. The reason they weren't released is because the judge wasn't convinced the need for their names was great enough, and they weren't being charged with anything, but simply used as evidence.
-Puk
This doesn't let you break the law and remain anonymous. It says that you can't get the identity so that you can prove the crime. This is VERY important.
Previously, you could file a BS lawsuit against John Doe, then subpeona the identities to identify John Doe. This allowed harassment.
What this does mean, however, is that if the SEC wanted to investigate, they could get the names.
Realize this case: the shareholders are suing that the stock ran up for a company on the verge of bankrupcy. None of the actions of these individuals caused the company to go bankrupt. The company's inability to have Cash>0 did so.
The shareholders aren't suing that the price dropped. And if the company's business plan required a certain stock price, well, that's their problem. Public companies should be able to function regardless of share price.
The judge didn't rule that you can't reveal names, merely that you can't without a compelling reason. If there was evidence of a crime, they'd be released.
For example, if the company compiled a list of short sellers, they could probably give the list to the chat room operators and demand the identities of anyone matching that list.
The burder is on those wishing to reveal the names, as it should be.
Alex
If the stock goes up to $50 a share, then when you repurchase that stock to give back to the firm, it will cost you $50,000, resulting in a net loss of $10,000.
However, if the stock goes down to $20 a share, then you will make $20,000. Even better, if the company goes bankrupt, the stock becomes worthless, and you make a full $40,000.
People who short stock are known as "bears." This is why a down market is called a "bear market." "Bulls" are those who buy stock the normal way. The statue of a bull and a bear locked in combat in front of the NYSE building, of course, symbolizes the struggle between these two factions in the investment world.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Publicly trashing companies you want to buy, or talking up companies you are about to sell, is one of the oldest investment scams in the book. The SEC strictly regulates, this sort of behavior. (The guys over at Motley Fool got into quite a fracas ovet this stuff a few years ago... As their old service on AOL became popular, it became a great toold for stock value manipulation: Spread a little FUD about Ford, watch the stock drop, buy low, then go back and fill up the posting boards with glowing praise about how Ford has turned around and is a great value now. Then sell after it bounces back. Rince. Repeat.)
This is why you should never listen to investment advice from anonymous sources. If you hear a rumor that Sun is about to buy Corel, it could easilly be a Corel holder who wants to dump their stock, but is hoping buy-out rumors will cause a small surge in the price.
Were these people scam artists, or just typical opinionated newsgroup posters blowing off steam about a company they disliked?
The line between free speech and illegal market manipulation is not as cut and dried as some people might like to think.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
..is why most sites track the information in the first place. For example does Slashdot dispose of all logging for anonymous users within 24 hours, etc? The strange thing is that while many organizations throw their arms up and claim that they're poor victim of a legal system gone awry and they sure wish they could hide the users better, the fact that they've logged away lots of idenfitying information instantly betrays that.
And there is nothing (though note that IANAL) legally requiring these "paper trails" to be logged away by thousands of sites, yet if you do log it then ironically you ARE responsible for it: It's like a self-imposed police state. An example of reaction to this is how a lot of corporations are imposing a "destroy the evidence, before it BECOMES evidence" mandate: Have a policy telling people to delete all emails older than a month/year/whatever, and you have no problems. Leave them hanging around and watch the subpoenas come flying in the door while you provide evidence against yourself about years old skeletons in the closet.
Untrue on both counts. In the first place the statement 'Bill Gates is an Asshole" would be defensible in the US since 1) Bill Gates is a public person and 2) the statement is a statement of opinion and not fact.
Simply adding 'in my opinion' does not make it an opinion, nor for that matter does adding the word 'alleged'. Unless a reporter is reporting on an allegation that has already become known stating that an allegation has been made has the same effect as making the allegation.
For example stating 'Bill Gate is a peadophile' would be actionable even if followed by 'in my opinion' or preceeded by 'it is alleged' since it is a statement of fact. Because he is a public persona Gates is considered to have less protection than a private individual would. However the statement would be clearly made 'with actual mallice' so the public interest defence fails.
Of course in the UK there was a time when a man could pay a prostitute $3000 on a London station platform and subsequently be awarded a multimillion dollar award for damages after newspapers alleged that he had sex with the woman. Today said Jeffrey Archer is facing perjury charges at the Old Bailey and if convicted looks like serving a serious stretch of prison.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"``The First Amendment clearly applies to the Internet,'' Zilly said. ``The law says that a person has a right to speak anonymously.''"
Great. The First Amendment clearly applies to the Internet.
Does that mean that a person has a right to speak anonymously about DeCSS?
I keep getting such a mixed message from our legal system.