Slashdot Mirror
Tor Developer Jacob Appelbaum Allegedly Intimidated Victims Into Silence and Anonymity (dailydot.com)
blottsie quotes a report from The Daily Dot: In the wake of programmer Jacob Appelbaum's abrupt departure from the Tor Project, rumors and accusations about both sexual misconduct and bullying have surfaced that extend back years. Now, four witnesses -- including a current senior Tor employee -- are stepping forward into the public eye, adding valuable insight into how Appelbaum allegedly intimidated those around him to keep accusations of sexual misconduct secret and pressure those who are speaking out to remain anonymous. [Late last week, a website was launched in which alleged victims of Appelbaum's sexual misconduct joined together to post their stories in an effort to publicize them without a much-feared wave of personalized and professional backlash. The stories are graphic and describe the ways Appelbaum allegedly assaulted people in public and in private. Three current Tor employees -- two of which agreed to be named on the record -- have confirmed that they personally know the authors of the alleged victim statements on the site, JacobAppelbaum.net. Although they continue to maintain anonymity for the authors of the stories, these Tor employees are now publicly vouching for the site's authenticity, which Appelbaum has called into question. Appelbaum broke his silence on Monday, deriding the accounts of his former colleagues as "vague rumors." It was an "attack," he said, on his reputation, led by character-assassins spreading "vicious and spurious" allegations against him.] In May, one of Tor's core software developers dodged the FBI and left the U.S. for Germany to avoid testifying in a criminal hacking investigation.
Not surprised by any of these developments......
Why are we posting nasty things like this with no effort to investigate their veracity? I'm sure we'll all just bandwagon onto whoever we believe is more credible, evidence be damned, whoever I identify with or whatever story I hear first is clearly right. I'm sure this will end up just as reasonably argued (with no evidence or investigation) as the case against Assange. Half the people will think he was set up by the NSA and the commies and the other half will say that he's some kind of pedoraper mysogynist.
Wake me when there's a court judgement and actual investigation has been done, not someone badmouthing people online and calling attention to rumors like some trashy tabloid.
There have been a number of serious issues with the Tor network recently. We've seen official government efforts to neutralize the network, then we've seen a number of exploits that has allowed government agencies like the FBI and NSA to spy on Tor networks. Then we see them going after Tor developers and finally we're supposed to believe that the lead Tor developer is 'dirty'?
Tor is dead, it's still too centralized to be sufficiently safe. We need alternatives.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
A Tor developer leaving the US for Germany doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the allegations against Jacob Appelbaum. This is a pattern in every fucking story on here that the editors feel the need to insert offtopic bullshit in the stories. How about, instead of putting in offtopic nonsense, the editors check spelling and grammar, then go find a couple of additional sources? It's like the editors are trolling their own damn stories and it's getting really annoying. You know, when the site was first sold, the editors would participate in the discussions and seemed genuinely interested in engaging users. Now it seems like they're rarely around. I've also seen some pretty rude comments in the face of criticism, at least from one editor. Slashdot has changed a bit since the ownership change, but not for the better.
Whatever, somehow every software nerd to rock the security boat is secretly a rapist? Is that really the most likely explanation for this? Coincidentally one of the most impossible crimes to convict... and totally impossible to exonerate in the public eye.
Sure is a coincidence!
This.
In many cases, intelligence agencies recruit moles based on having some embarrassing information. It doesn't have to be prosecutable. Just something the subject doesn't want revealed. But now that allegations have been made public, the leverage value of the information has been diminished to the likes of the CIA/NSA. So this stuff should never be swept under the rug. Bring out the evidence and judge Applbaum either guilty or innocent publicly.
Undoubtedly, some women will be hesitant to pursue charges, due to the way that the s/w developer culture comes down on them. But in this case, that could work against anyone making threats, particularly anonymously*. Because if that information gets into the hands of the TLAs, its just as valuable fodder for blackmail as Jacob's fondling charge. And the sources of those threats will need to be bounced from sensitive projects as well.
*Like the NSA isn't watching the TOR/privacy s/w developer community already.
Have gnu, will travel.
Was he not married? I don't understand what the story is saying.
The link to the allegations is in the summery, but if you don't want to scroll up, here: jacobappelbaum.net
He was sexually harassing men? women? or both?
That's not clear to me, since the names and photo-icons on the site are pseudonyms. Three of them who imply their sex in the narratives are female (despite male-appearing photo-icons)
Who needs the FBI/NSA to conduct a smear operation when you've got smear merchants in residence?
How leading Tor developers and advocates tried to smear me after I reported their US Government ties
Take Tor developer Andrea Shepard. As soon as my story went live, Shepard responded with a torrent of childish insults, calling me “Pandofilth” and “Yasha the Foul,” a “statist propagandist," a "fucktard's fucktard." Shepard accused me of being funded by spooks, and ranted on and on about the various ways in which she said I had performed sexual favors for a male colleague. She hurled similar childish abuse at anyone she caught commenting positively about my article. When readers suggested to Shepard that she should instead offer a point-by-point rebuttal of my article, rather that swearing and insulting at anyone who mentioned it, she responded that my article wasn't worth the effort of rebutting (only insulting), and that I don't deserve to live:
— Andre (@puellavulnerata) July 18, 2014
Andrea seems easily able to launch into baseless smears against people who've gone up against her.
He was sexually harassing men? women? or both?
That's not clear to me, since the names and photo-icons on the site are pseudonyms. Three of them who imply their sex in the narratives are female (despite male-appearing photo-icons)
All of the photo-icons on the site are of Appelbaum.
I am not able to find any account of what has happened that does not come with a strong political agenda attached. That is the core problem with public accusations as opposed to filing a complaint: It immediately muddies the waters as people on both sides jump on the issue and try to exploit it for their own agendas. I honestly have no idea of what to think of this because all possibilities from him having done exactly what is claimed to this being an orchestrated smear-campaign seem now equally probable. I even consider it possible that he was a mole and what happens now is the desired outcome. Not good at all.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I'm sure this will be full of well-reasoned, cogent discussion. Just give me a moment to polish my monocle...
He was sexually harassing men? women? or both?
That's not clear to me, since the names and photo-icons on the site are pseudonyms. Three of them who imply their sex in the narratives are female (despite male-appearing photo-icons)
All of the photo-icons on the site are of Appelbaum.
!!!
The site would be much clearer if they actually mentioned that minor fact.
The way the site is arranged makes it appear that each photo is a picture of the person whose narrative is linked. I can only assume that they believe that everybody in the world knows what Appelbaum looks like, and so they don't need to bother making it clear who these are pictures of.
I have no idea about the man's guilt or innocence, but it seems to me that if you want to make a guilty man look innocent, an obvious smear campaign like that website is one way to do it.
" I don't understand what the story is saying. He was sexually harassing men? women? or both? "
You need to understand the Sexual Allegation Rules. Allegations of sexual misconduct by anonymous victims are automatically true and your life is ruined. The victims can stay anonymous, because Tor.
It's not so much to protect women.
It's more to be able to start up witch trials against men who are doing something important.
This is actually the main reason for all law. Law does not exist to create justice in any logical sense. It exists solely as a device to turn the masses against anyone who challenges the status quo.
So, apparently there are a solid number of people who are well aware of things this guy has been doing
that are supposedly solidly covered by normal criminal law, and they have known for some time, and yet
no charges have been pressed, no police have been involved, and no one has had a day in court?
Instead, we have people who can 'verify Anonymous victims' (no, really) and that makes a public and well
organised smeer campaign the correct path forward? With media release level publicity and professional
websites publicly collecting more anonymous accounts against this guy?
My god he really must have pissed in someones beer..
For all I know he is guilty as sin, however vigilante justice is now the socially accepted way of dealing with
what should be reasonably simple criminal complaints? I am not sure that he is the worse offender in
this particular circle of wrongness.
Just as he may well be guilty, he also has the right to face his accusers (in a court of law), have a legal defense,
all those trappings of a just society that we all would demand, dont we? And when, as it seems people are quite
certain, he is found guilty, he will be suitably punished.
But instead we have this - congratulations accusers, you have lowered yourselves to the level you claim he works on.
It's quite obvious that the NSA, FBI, CIA, or one of their friends abroad are trying to publicly discredit this guy.
If that's what you think, you may want to reconsider everything else in your life that appears obvious to you.
Seriously the guy is such an asshole that some people in his own organization were wondering if he could have been a spy sent to sabotage the infosec community. Tinfoil hats all around.
lucm, indeed.
Unless those victims made verbal testimonies, slander is not even relevant. Don't use words you don't understand
lucm, indeed.
It's a clunky description but I can totally picture it. Create some kind of intimate, quiet ambiance like when you're the last two persons sitting next to a dying bonfire; let the other person feel like they're talking in confidence with a trusted friend; then the next day you repeat publicly everything the other person said.
But on the other hand whenever someone says something like "safe space" I just feel like fedexing them a bag of post-Taco Bell shit. So I'm conflicted on that one.
lucm, indeed.
Witnesses lie and are manipulated.
In the modern world eye witnesses mean absolutely nothing. People can be convinced of anything, including memory of experiences they never had.
This is a consequence of abstracting so many aspects of the world behind multiple layers of virtual interfaces.
I think we have two solid options here:
1) The alleged victims step forward and handle this responsibly in the court of law. This way there's an objective evaluation of facts around this case.
2) Applebaum sues the maintainers of the website for libel. This way there's also an objective evaluation of facts around this case.
If neither of the above scenarios happen, this kind of vigilante justice will gain a semi-official status as a tool to solve similar issues (not good).
Jacob Appelbaum has already shown himself to be a massive dick by launching smear campaigns against critics, so he starts out with one strike against his credibility.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
In what way are men immune to sexual harassment?
Ok, so here's my Jacob story. I'm going to post as AC despite having an account here with excellent karma. I stand by what I say but I don't wish to have any conversations with those who might want to know more, as will become obvious below. So mod it as you see fit.
Everything I'm telling you would have to already be known to the relevant authorities. (Which is the point.)
I liked Jacob Appelbaum, he had done some really good things. I admired him.
I had a conversation with Jacob a few years ago. This is a direct one-on-one in-person conversation. We were talking about teaching hardware hacking and at some point the subject came up of his hacker outreach work. He got to talking about a trip he had taken to Iraq to teach hardware hacking and stuff. This was while there was still a big U.S. presence there and a lot of fighting. That sounded cool at first. Maybe generous and kind of daring. But as he went on it turned out he was teaching teenagers how to hack remote controls, like garage door openers and stuff. Not bombs or anything, but just how to hack remotes, ya know, and rig them to things.
I was stunned. I mean, these are basically young men of fighting age, in a war zone. What do you think they might do with this new skill?
I didn't know what to say. I asked, "Don't you think that's a bit irresponsible, under the circumstances?"
He said something that I can't remember verbatim about knowledge being generally good. I was annoyed, I pressed him on it. Like, what if they blow up some poor kid from Oakland? Eventually he got annoyed and went on a long rant about how it's their country and we have no right to be there and so whatever happens happens, and related things, etc.
I didn't even respond. At best this is completely idiotic. At worst, he just admitted a very serious crime.
Ok, so I am against the Iraq war. I'll say so and put a sticker on my car and vote accordingly on election day. But WHAT. THE. FUCK. To actually go there and share your abilities in a way that contributes to their own sectarian violence AND gets people from your own country killed is in an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FUCKING UNIVERSE. I can't express the feeling I get thinking about this. It's like it's just too offensive to even qualify as STUPID. It comes to STUPID's door and is turned away on grounds of extreme repulsiveness. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? This is so beyond the pale that my mind is unable to properly categorize it. Holy fucking shit.
I was and still am completely amazed and the irresponsibility and sheer narcissism of this kind of thinking. I have secretly considered him to be a dangerous monster ever since. The rest of the community now agrees. There is no happiness in this, but there is relief.
Now people talk about how he gets harassed by the authorities. It might be because he has done important and valuable work for privacy, which is true, and they don't like that and so they're messing with him. I believe this is probably true. It could ALSO be because he POKES THEM IN THE FUCKING EYE until they come after him, because he is a narcissist and if they are hounding him it will confirm his own sense of importance. That must feel good to a narcissist, being important like that.
Some people do something good, and because it is good, they are considered heroes. And some people really really want to be heroes. So they look for things that are undeniably good to do so they can become heroes. There is a pretty big difference between these two kinds of people. The very noble fight for rights and freedom attracts both. The second type attaches themselves to noble causes and when their true motivations are known, those causes are diminished.
The Mannings and the Snowdens are shadowed by the Assanges and Appelbaums. They are diminished by them. And yet, good work of the former could not have been done without the undeniably good work of the latter, done for both the right and wrong reasons.
Well, no matter whether the allegations are true or not, we now presumable have one highly motivated and capable pair of eyeballs which will carefully audit all new commits to the TOR code base.
The other possibility is that he'll fork and ignore TOR development altogether. Might be OK, but only if he can convince enough people to run nodes on his competing network. His competing network might be able use TOR as an exit route (running an exit node is the highest risk part of such a network).
FBI, NSA, Congress...
Noticed a pattern in how anybody who opposes the mantra "everything the government does is secret, and everybody else don't get to have secrets" are accused of sexual misconduct?
I'm sorry, but do you live in a world where whenever any high profile geek gets accused of rape, his legions of fans line up to condemn him? Because in the world I've been living in, they line up to accuse it of being a giant conspiracy and his accusers of being lying sluts paid by the NSA.
I know there are some truths we don't want to acknowledge, but the reality is that polls of women show that about 1 in 6 report having been sexually assaulted during their lives, and there's an expected lifetime incidence of about 1 in 4. These are anonymous polls, they have nothing to gain by lying in them. Who the heck do you think it is that's assaulting all these women? Do you think it's just something like five guys, lurking in the shadows? The fact is that there are a lot of people in the general population committing rape. Something confirmed by anonymous surveys of men. A rather clever approach used to poll the other side of the equation (Lesak & Miller 2002, McWhorter 2009, etc) is, rather than to use the word rape in the surveys, simply survey about their various sexual experiences, and include some experiences in the list that are rape, without using the word rape to describe them. Depending on the group and the study, usually in the ballpark of 10% of young men confess to having committed rape at least once, and about a third of them to having done it multiple times. Which are numbers that correlate well with the victim reporting incidence.
Rape is not rare. Rapists are not rare. But convictions are. And victims know this latter fact, and few want to go through hell for something that is almost certain to be futile.
Maybe, but I can barely make out what you're saying because your horse is too high.
Do you see a pattern here? Every single male individual that happens to participate in something that hampers US Government surveillance, will usually be faced with sexual charges or be painted with dubious life choices. Assange and this guy are clear examples, and Snowden's gf professional detail was also outed pretty fast (for those who don't know, she worked in the "exotic dancing industry"). I guess the "traitor" label just wasn't cutting it anymore so they decided to go with the "rapist" one instead.
I think you're confusing Vigilante Justice with Free Speech. Vigilante Justice involves breaking the law. If Appelbaum's accusers beat him senseless or killed him, or detained him, or key'd his car, or even _touched_ him they would be vigilantes.
Instead they shared their stories in a public forum.
That's Free Speech in a Free Society.
Good summary. I am sure many more people stood up to this guy, and we will never read about them, so this could be the tip of the iceberg we see here. But how many victims need to come forward before you decide this guy is bad for business and should get the boot? Hundreds? Thousands? At some point you need to stop blaming victims and start blaming the creep. I don't care if this guy is a programming superstar, if other talented people say to themselves "fuck this shit, I'm out of here" because of his continuous harassment then he is a liability.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Seriously, there is no way that this is anything other than an orchestrated take down of the TOR project since they can't eliminate it technically nor in the courts.
And 'they' managed to get three people working on TOR, including a senior member of the team, to take TOR down!
Is your post a case of 'I just ignore the information that doesn't support my conspiracy theory', or do you really believe that everyone working at TOR except Appelbaum is working for the enemy?
I find it interesting that many of the posts here that try to defend Appelbaum and point out that the accusations come from anonymous sources were written by Anonymous Cowards...
You only get to share those kind of stories if they're true. Otherwise it's libel, which it is not protected free speech.
And probably turns out the same way.
They don't. You just have a confirmation bias.
Anonymous polls from where? You're going to have to give sources on these figures because the only research I have ever personally seen reporting these outcomes have basically been checklists on what not to do when you want useful results. I'm sure an anonymous poll from the huffington post will yield totally legit results for such a question.
It's rather sad Reiser still has his defenders.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Was he not married?
How is this relevant?
He was sexually harassing men? women? or both?
Does it matter?
Men can simply say fuck off how can you sexually harass a man?
You have no idea how sexual harassment works. Particularly in a workplace/professional setting.
So I assume they are saying he was sexually harassing women?
Based on your reasoning, your assumption is unsafe.
And I think he is not an unpleasant looking fella and I would love to be sexually harassed by him.
All becomes clear. You're not just wrong, you are also an idiot.
A rather clever approach used to poll the other side of the equation (Lesak & Miller 2002, McWhorter 2009, etc) is, rather than to use the word rape in the surveys, simply survey about their various sexual experiences, and include some experiences in the list that are rape, without using the word rape to describe them.
Depending on the group and the study,usually in the ballpark of 10% of young men confess to having committed rape at least once, and about a third of them to having done it multiple times...
Sorry, but this sort of crap doesn't help, I know you'll now start quibbling about which 'group' of young males we're talking about here, but it is heavily implied that we're all just as bad, and the '10%' and 'about a third of them' figures are designed to evoke a specific reaction, so, seeing as we're playing 'ballpark' figures here...
Census Data
FBI Data
US Census data 2010: Ages 10-69 years (arbitrarily chosen range): 119,561,848
10% being rapists, gives us: 11,956,184
Ok, so young men were mentioned, let's tune it down a bit
US Census data 2010: Ages 10-29: 43,533,295
10% being rapists, gives us: 4,353,329
and, assuming the surveys you talk about above mean that 33% of this 10% figure are repeat rapists, gives us 1,436,598.
... Which are numbers that correlate well with the victim reporting incidence.
Official FBI's statistics for 2010: 84,767 'forcible' rapes, and, bear in mind, they do not differentiate between rape types (e.g. male rape, homosexual rape..), but, for 'ballpark' purposes we're assuming rape as per discussion here so will take these figures as an absolute maximum.
Assuming each rape in the FBI's statistics was carried out by a different individual, and that these individuals were all from the same age range as published in the US census.
Running through the age ranges on the table gives you a figure of between 0.74% and 1.48% of the males in each range being rapists (up to 65-69 years old range), after that, obviously, the figures become a bit meaningless (rise to 925% for 100 years and over group...and, no, I'm not going to get drawn into the 'historical abuse' argument)
Taking wider ranges,
Assuming we're talking about the aggregate age range 10-29, gives us a figure of 0.2%
Assuming we're talking about the aggregate age range 10-69, gives us 0.07%..
Assuming we're talking about the aggregate age range 15-24, gives us 0.38%
So, not quite 10%.
Rape is not rare. Rapists are not rare. But convictions are. And victims know this latter fact, and few want to go through hell for something that is almost certain to be futile.
Rape and rapists may not be rare, however that doesn't mean they're as common as implied either. 'but, unreported and rapes...', yes, I know this happens and understand (from family experience) why people are reluctant to proceed with legal action in these cases, sorry, but as harsh and callous as this may sound they should proceed legally, horrible as the experience might be, as It is only rape if a court of law decides it to be so, until then, I'm afraid it is just allegations and innuendo.
Yes the legal system stinks, it might fail them, here's the thing though, it might not.
Going to the police around sexual harassment has a poor track record of going anywhere, even with witnesses. Most of the time it winds up around competing accusations. Evidence is often scarce, and with charismatic folks involved, people may not realize the extent they've been manipulated until later. Abusers often target people who are not in a position to speak up, where their career could be at risk. Conventions are also a giant issue - doing all of this hundreds of miles distant even further reduces the odds of success, and ratchets up the stress. And, of course, the stress of spending the next few years being literally forced to deal with your abuser by the legal system.
That's before you get into things like real cases where police gaslighted a rape victim into recanting, prosecuted them for reporting the rape, and only come around once they catch the rapist who kept the physical evidence of the rape exactly as reported. Or the public attacks against the credibility of people who report to police, have witnesses, photographic and video evidence and pursue a restraining order, exactly as people tell them to.
So you wind up not reporting, and maybe convince yourself it was a one time thing, or maybe you played too big a role in it, and he's too important... then someone else mentions something. And someone else. And a fourth person. And it snowballs, and you wind up in a situation where none of you can make effective claims in court, but something is obviously wrong. Remaining silent means that others are going to go into interactions with this person unprepared. So, you say something.
Slander is spoken, libel is written https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is the hard thing. The allegations are not entirely unbelievable; yet.... its also not like infiltration and use of sexual allegations against people is unheard of. In fact, its pretty well acknowledged as a tried and true tactic of intelligence services around the world.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Do you have any examples of this? Someone who clearly did not do any unwanted sexual touching, forced kissing etc. who was accused of sexual harassment because they challenged the status quo?
I can't think of any. Assange was accused of rape, not sexual harassment, and freely admits to actually having (consensual) sex with those women. Anyone else you would like to cite to support your claim?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Just as he may well be guilty, he also has the right to face his accusers (in a court of law), have a legal defense,
all those trappings of a just society that we all would demand
Of course, but you also can't force people to make police reports, or force the police to take them seriously, or force the prosecutor to take the case forward. In this situation, if he does want his day in court, he will have to sue his accusers. Some of them have come forward publicly, and the anonymous ones can be identified by a court if he can convince them that there is a case to be made.
You can't demand someone not say something because exercising their free speech creates a burden on you. Such an idea is incompatible with freedom of speech.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The CIA discovered a long time ago that character assassination was just as effective, and much less messy, than the kind with a bullet. They used it on Julian Assange and many others, My favorite is a certain IMF chairman who made the very stupid mistake of challenging the supremacy of the U.S. dollar. Big mistake. At least with that one they dropped the charges the same week his successor took office. That sucessor was suddenly oddly quiet on the topic of introducing a new global currency to compete with the dollar (imagine that).
Pro-tip: If you're doing something the U.S. government doesn't like, don't assume that the girl who's all over you at the bar or who shows up at your hotel room telling you she's DTF is into you for your stunning personality. Don't let your ego or your dumb dick be used as a weapon against you.
Regardless of Jake's innocence or guilt, I find the timing on this to be very interesting: Just after a major change in management and before what appears to be an upcoming change in the TOR protocol. I'm hoping that's just coincidental.
I read some of the accounts and feel that there is a different issue that is not being discussed: The community that allowed this all to happen right in front of their own eyes.
Just now they disavow the abuser and tell the victims to go to the police. But the justice system is not really any help in most abuse cases. First of all nothing criminal happened in many of the stories. Yet the actions taken by Mr. Applebaum, while not criminal, where despicable none the less. And he did so in front of numerous witnesses. By not speaking up and putting an end to them they condoned his actions and encouraged this behaviour. People at the Tor project admit they knew what was going on. Applebaum may have created the toxic environment in the first place, but the people that didn't put an end to it or even helped him bully the victims into silence abetted him.
The community is to blame for this at least in part.
Even sexual abuse cases are complicated, because they often happen within an existing relationship with existing trust and power structures. A lot of abuse is not black and white, but in a grey area, when it comes to the criminal assessment. Just because someone is a severe asshole in a relationship and abuses their partner doesn't mean a crime happened.
There is currently a criminal case in the news about a rape that happened on the campus of Standford university. Two witnesses came upon a scene where a person was raping an unconscious body. Even though this seems to be a clear cut case, the victim still had to answer to questions regarding her sex life and endure a lengthy trial. Even though she wasn't conscious during the crime so couldn't answer any questions about it. Imagine how complicated cases are where the victim was conscious. I don't even know how I would or could design a trial or justice system that does a better job. In the end, most sexual abuse cases are about the question which side tells the more believable story. Which is far from perfect.
The fact that the communities around Applebaum (Tor was not his only project, he was part of the CCC, cDc and possibly more) simply sit back and tell the victims to go to the police instead of opening investigations about the issue is deeply troubling.
Any project that Applebaum was part of and does not at least issue apologies for allowing this to go on and taking steps to prevent similar events in the future are highly suspicious.
How many more Applebaums are out there, working inside Tor, inside the Chaos Computer Club, inside the Cult of the Dead Cow and abuse helpless victims?
'“Forest” writes that she woke up one night while platonically sharing a bed with Appelbaum to find her pants unzipped, his hands in her underwear and touching her vagina.'
The only time a male would share a bed "platonically" with a women is when the male is deceased. At the risk of looking a little paranoid, this is precisely the same way they discredited Assange, having two women come forward with accusations, who turned out later on worked for a CIA front organization.
What a world of funhouse mirrors you must live in. You have no imagination. You honestly think imagination has no place in your view of the world. Good job letting the world have its way with you!
You are asking me to tailor-make a persuasive presentation for you specifically.
Instead, I ask you, what is the proof that any man who as ever been accused of sexual harassment or rape actually did it? Finding his DNA inside her? What if it was consentual?
There is no way, no way at all, to bring this matter into objective terms. That is obvious, all lawmakers would see this, and so they know it and made these laws anyway. Why?
Who has no real grip on objectivity? Women. Okay make some animal noises. "SEXIST!!!!". But it's true. It's a consequence of biology. The proof is in sexual dimorphism. They have strengths against men, but it is not in their rationality. A strong argument is in our history. Men have had much more immediate need for quick thinking in objective matters, and so they were selected to be rational above women. Exploration, combat, construction, etc. For hundreds of thousands of years men surpassed women in these ways. Sexual dimorphism not only in humans but in all apes proves this pattern is even more ancient in some aspects, going back millions of years. I digress.
Women needed to be placated so they would be economically productive in the new paradigm.
But that's not the main point. It was not women's instinctual behavior that was the problem for the industrializing world; they would go to work regardless of having children to watch etc. The main point was to subdue the instincts of men. They are more complex in the problems they cause for society. This was a golden chance for the society to establish a regiment of constant whipping against men. By punishing their sexual instincts, they encourage them to be mentally weak and compliant. They remove their ability to be fulfilled, not just be removing the possibility for most to mate easily, but removing the possibility to even attempt mating. The extreme cases being homosexuals who would never attempt mating and indeed find it disgusting to participate in.
Just like all law, this is a way to destroy those who would challenge the status quo.
Of course.
"The people who write the software I like are SAINTS! There's no way this isn't some big conspiracy that everyone who actually knows him is taking part in!"
And reiserfs proves it can work. My guess is that a few half-crazy types were planted in to rupture the porject from within
LOL. Fucking REISER is your example? You seriously couldn't do better than him?
So, apparently there are a solid number of people who are well aware of things this guy has been doing that are supposedly solidly covered by normal criminal law, and they have known for some time, and yet no charges have been pressed, no police have been involved, and no one has had a day in court? Instead, we have people who can 'verify Anonymous victims' (no, really) and that makes a public and well organised smeer campaign the correct path forward?
Read what the prosecutor said about the case against Woody Allen on behalf of Dylan Farrow. Read the letter from Brock Turner's victim and learn about what she went through just to get the guy a six months' sentence. Read about Bill Cosby's victims. Find out why criminal complaints are not the path forward.
however vigilante justice is now the socially accepted way of dealing with what should be reasonably simple criminal complaints
This is not vigilante justice. It's just telling the truth publicly, and it encourages other victims to report these crimes sooner and more regularly.
he also has the right to face his accusers (in a court of law), have a legal defense, all those trappings of a just society that we all would demand, dont we?
No, that's only if they charge him in a court of law. This is just telling the truth. Nothing wrong with that. Everybody should know the good news.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
How slanderous of you!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
That applies nicely to the court system and the state. It's less applicable in tech forums home to a wide variety of people from varying nations and jurisdictions.
We're allowed to have an opinion on the matter. Based on available information, I think these accusations have merit.
You can't demand someone not say something because exercising their free speech creates a burden on you. Such an idea is incompatible with freedom of speech.
Um, that is kind of incompatible with libel and slander laws. It isn't free speech to tell a false story about someone else. Also, if the stories are true, but the tellers can't prove it, they can still be prosecuted for libel (in this case).
Notice I am not a lawyer, and neither are you, this is not legal advice.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It's just telling the truth publicly, and it encourages other victims to report these crimes sooner and more regularly.
Correction, this is telling a possible truth, neither you nor I were there, so we cannot independently determine if these accounts are true. Until any of these cases (the slander case included) are prosecuted, there is no way for anyone to know if this is a case of slander, or a serial harasser. Just like Cosby in fact.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
After he led the police to his wife's body, you would think people would stop defending him.
https://www.wired.com/2008/07/...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'm writing about the point of view of a person looking for options when they are a victim and legal recourse is inadequate. In such a case the person knows full well what the truth is.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
In Germany and in fact all of Europe, libel is not a crime. You can't be prosecuted for it. It's a purely civil matter, people can sue you if they can show that it is both untrue and caused them some kind of loss.
Even if they are sued, it doesn't stop them saying it again. It is possible to get an injunction sometimes, which does go against freedom of speech. I don't think Germany has them though, they are a UK thing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
IANAL, but I believe that, in the US, believing what you say is true is a defense against libel. If Appelbaum can show that the claimed incidents probably didn't happen, he can win. I believe the standard would be preponderance of the evidence.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Dayum! OVER $100,000! Wow. That is amazing. $100,000! LOL.
I watched this fella' on youtube giving a presentation once and totally did not dig the experience. Some words that come to mind as far as first impressions go would be, superiority complex, condescending, with a hint of verbal assault-i-ness... It's not uncommon to see, some times, very intelligent/competent/capable/experienced people act that way some times, and I'll admit I'm a total ninny; but, I got the feeling it was more some expose` on how the audience was stupid because they are the way they are; rather than, a talk about how the US constitution is being violated and their are serious privacy issues at stake the world over, such and such... That being said, from the brief first impression I could make on the fella', he seemed like kind of an attack dog. Is he a moral individual? Did he do some sexual stuff he shouldn't have? Could be. Dude seemed like a total douche, though. I see no reason why the military would care or want to have a program like TOR destroyed. The US Justice system, drug sniffer types, yeah they would.... I say there is probably some truth to the situation. I'm a damned ninny and the fucker bothered me, so I can imagine him pissing off enough sensitive people, slowly over time, building up weight. Then all it takes is some sureptitious noise or otherwise to start the avalanche that's already been waiting to happen...
I mean, forget about all those cases where there are videos of guys having sex with unconscious women, or women who are vehemently telling them not to. That's not "proof" I guess. By your logic you could never have proof of any crime. If I get you alone in a room and beat the shit out of you, maybe you did that to yourself? We can never know objectively. The only difference here is that you have some weird issues with women that you are projecting onto the situation.
That kind of logic is insulting to men. To imply that no man can resist groping a woman that is close enough to them is ridiculous and reductive.
You still obviously don't know what slander means. Did you just ear your mom and dad talk about grown-up things and figured you'd impress the other kids with your big words?
lucm, indeed.
Get some help, you really need it. Delusions aren't healthy.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Wow, APK resorting to personal attacks like they matter.
Seek help man.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Seek help, psychiatric disease is something that can be treated.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You're clearly insane
Nice crafting of strawmen to ignore the issue and masturbate out your stupid emotions about an issue you don't understand
Just to help you with your horrible reading comprehension:
Authority decides objectivity. That is becoming a simpler and simpler truth. The authority of our society is unjust. As long as it stands, there is no justice.
having the shit beaten out of you is not the worst thing.
being raped is not the worst thing.
maybe some of the blame should be on you for your acts of free will that led to these circumstances? That's not even a question usually. Because free will has been removed from most people by the current authority. It's simply a matter of removing the parts of the machine that are working counter to its function. This is injustice because the parts are greater than the machine itself. They are more complex and wonderful and have far more potential to fulfill humanity.
But hey, I guess the pittance you get from your job is enough to ignore all of this and to ignore any possible questioning of your circumstances. If you ever get any real success it will be even more reason to go with the flow! Apparently it boils down to a question of character, and most people have all of theirs removed at a young age.
lolwut? I don't think you know what a straw man is. I directly refuted his argument that there is no proof that any man accused of rape actually did it, which is patently absurd. There are plenty cases with video evidence or multiple eye witnesses.
I think you believe that what you are writing is a coherent thought, but I assure you it is not.
Okay I'm sorry, I'm dealing with a retard here, I was giving you too much credit.
Yes cherrypick the part you want to address. Completely wrap yourself up in a false implication that if valid is nothing but accessory to the argument and THEN address the entire statement.
Do you have any idea how tiny the proportion of cases of rape with clear-cut evidence are, like the cases you mentioned? "Plenty"? Plenty enough for what? For you to use an excuse for completely abandoning your rational faculties in perceiving the world around you?
You are so low in your consciousness. You are stuck, focused on an point that is several layers behind the important point that was addressed.
You have no argument against the parent, but you want to object, so like the little rat you are you chew at the corner hoping the contents will spill out.
You apparently don't want to have an actual conversation. At no point did I ever insult you or devolve the to ad hominem attacks, and I have better things to do with my time than name call with random people on the internet. Have a good day, and I hope you find a better outlet for these feelings.
ahh, u rly showed me.
What a witty riposte!
Oops! there i go agin wit my bg werds
Anyone who told you in the past that you're clever and/or funny lied, or is a total idiot. (And btw this isn't slander)
lucm, indeed.
Jill Bahring: I Was Not Assaulted by Jacob Appelbaum
So the only incident that isn't anything but anonymous rumor turns out not to be assault at all, but merely a consensual public display of affection. The rest is unsubstantiated smear campaign.
Figured you wait and come back when you thought the coast was clear and leave some limp-wristed faggot comment you pusillanimous little shit.
Yeah I was busy, I had a Skype session with your mom. We did talk a little and she warned me that when you feel belittled or insecure you tend to use a foul language. So I feel terrible to have put you through this, I shouldn't have brought attention to your shortcomings. Hopefully you will learn something out of this, at the very least what the word "slander" means.
lucm, indeed.
Wow, that must have been some Skype session, given that my mother died last year of pancreatic cancer. OH WELL, YOU WIN.
I won early in the thread, when I pointed out that you have no idea what "slander" means. Everything after that was just an epilogue.
I'll never know if your mom really died of pancreatic cancer or if you just made that up. If it did happen, using that as ammo in a flame war on Slashdot is really a terrific way to honor her memory; and if you made it up, it's immensely respectful for people who actually suffer or died from that terrible disease. I guess either way it shows what a classy person you are.
lucm, indeed.
> You got to watch people though who in preaching something contradict the very thing they preach.
Very much this. Not everyone is ideological, and not everyone who is has an ideology that values openness and truth.
Some pretty bad guys often have their interests pretty well aligned with free speech activists. Plus people are complicated and can come up with all sorts of twisted logic to justify things.
But I am also pretty familiar at this point with seeing people who did very good work turn out to be deeply flawed people personally.
A news story had me looking up some of the Stratfor leak emails, and I found a little gem in there, a bit of intelligence service humor, but, I think its also a pretty interesting statement on people:
https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/...
"Patriot: A source who is betraying his country for ideological, religious, patriotic or other unreliable beliefs. Very dangerous person. He could change his mind."
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It's a simple web of trust thing. Whom do you trust more? Appelbaum or - for instance - Nick Farr?