Slashdot Mirror


Tor Project Confirms Sexual Misconduct By Developer Jacob Appelbaum (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Tor Project, a nonprofit known for its online anonymity software, says it has verified claims that former employee Jacob Appelbaum engaged in "sexually aggressive behavior" with people inside and outside of its organization. "We have confirmed that the events did take place as reported," Shari Steele, Tor's executive director, tells The Verge. In a blog post today, Steele says that Tor began an investigation into Appelbaum's behavior after several people came forward with allegations of misconduct in late May. In a statement made in June, he said the allegations were "entirely false." He resigned from the Tor Project in May. "I want to thank all the people who broke the silence around Jacob's behavior," Steele writes. "It is because of you that this issue has now been addressed. I am grateful you spoke up, and I acknowledge and appreciate your courage." Steele says that Tor is now implementing a new anti-harassment policy, as well as a process for submitting complaints and having them reviewed. The changes will be put in place this week. Tor also announced last month that it would replace its entire board of directors.

410 comments

  1. Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This kind of accusation is usually BS to frame politically dangerous people. Case in point, Julian Assange.

    1. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a case of hipster he said she said. SJW 'logic' likely applies.

      http://jacobappelbaum.net/ This site reeks of typical SJW style faux fear of intimidation.

    2. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a case of hipster he said she said. SJW 'logic' likely applies.

      http://jacobappelbaum.net/ This site reeks of typical SJW style faux fear of intimidation.

      You used the "hipster" word, therefore you concede that you are completely full of shit.

    3. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of the accusations sound legit, some not so much. Lovecruft's claims she was fondeled after agreeing to sleep in the same bed as JA. What adult in their right mind sleeps in the same bed with another grown person of the opposite sex, then gets suprised to be frisked? Maybe I just wasn't raised the same way. I wouldn't even share a hotel room with another adult besides a explicit SO.

      There were other claims which are still contested, such as the Nick Farr incident. The "victim" came out and said people blew things out of proportion and people misinterpreted what they saw.

      More drama than Shakespeare.

    4. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does that logic work?

    5. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Bonus points for using "SJW". Anyone who says SJW is full of shit.

    6. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Since when do non-related men and women of sexual age, sleep together without sex? It does sound like she's there to do the Honeytrap shit:

      https://www.eff.org/document/20140207-nbc-gchq-honey-trap-cyber-attackbackground-jtrig

    7. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't even share a hotel room with another adult besides a explicit SO.

      Any other adult? Or just one of the sex you tend to prefer to sleep with?

      On some work trips I've happily shared a hotel room (with dual beds) with a co-worker (so we could be cheap and stick around the town for a few more days)... given neither of us are into men, the likelihood of one accusing the other of anything untward is near nil. Ditto for when I might to have a 'mans' weekend with a friend, drive to a city a ways away for some football.

      At the same time, I've known plenty of male co-workers who make it a point not to ever be alone with an any individual woman, even in an closed door office meeting for fear that they give the opprotunity to make something up... or for something to actually happen.

    8. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Overall, that site depicts them like a bunch of insecure, thin skinned hipsters who probably never learned personal boundaries. The language used as well as their mugs make this clear.

    9. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe JA was trying to laid, frankly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. A grown adult woman of tor-developer-level intelligence could not see this coming? She then gets offended when he makes the next move, after willingly getting into a bed with a grown man. Sounds bizarrely clueless. A responsible person would have politely declined and slept somewhere else. I guess he should have broken out a PGP-signed proposal for intimacy. I'm not defending any of the other party accusations, but this is complete idiocy on her part.

    10. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You just said it twice. Point proven.

    11. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OP has obviously never backpacked, where mixed gender shared rooms are common.

    12. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I've ended up having to share a room with a female coworker on a business trip (separate beds of course). Nothing untoward happened, no accusations were filed.

    13. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Funny

      But that's impossible. Everyone knows Slashdot posters are the most desirable of all men? How is it possible that she didn't immediately leap across the space, demand sexual gratification from you, and then inevitably go and tell your mutual supervisor that you molested her in a wanton and depraved manner?

      Oh, I forget to mention SJW, so SJW this and SJW that! Women are vile evil creatures out to entrap men and then get them fired!

      SJW....

      SJW...

      SJW .... SJW .... SJW !!!!!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She assumed you were gay.

    15. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Informative

      Being stupid isn't a license for someone to sexually assault you. But there have been much more specific accusations about Appelbaum's behavior.

      http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like anyone crying rape this day and age is full of shit.

      See, anyone can argue with fallacies.

    17. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, she thought he was some kind of talking rubber chicken. That's what most nerds look like to real people.

    18. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're begging the question. If you put yourself in a position that conventionally implies interest in sexual activity, then it's NOT sexual assault for the other person to engage in sexual activity. Even if you didn't actually want it, you can't blame them for your own behaviour being misleading.

    19. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I bet your mum/sister/brother hope you don't have the occasion to sleep in the same bed as them

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    20. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the less desirable a man is, the MORE likely a woman would make false sexual misconduct claims. The most egregious woman will do it out of simple contempt for his lack of attractiveness or his social awkwardness, but usually it happens when such men don't comply with whatever the women wanted from them. Most women don't like having men refuse them because it's ego bruising for them to have men say 'no', and especially bruising if the man in question is grossly unattractive to her. You see, like men, women are human beings too, and sexual instinct plays a big part in social interaction across the sexes.

      Bottom line: when you jump into someone's bed, wtf else do you expect, male or female, especially when drugs are involved. Stupid is as stupid does. I don't see why we should hold sexual behavior beyond the reach of darwin. If it's ok to hold him accountable for his behavior, it should be ok to hold her accountable as well.

    21. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet your mum/sister/brother hope you don't have the occasion to sleep in the same bed as them

      Were there banjos playing as you wrote that ? I can't imagine the kind of idiot who would consider that relevant at all let alone that someone would let you slide saying it.

    22. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. You ask; you don't assume there's some unspoken green light just because someone laid down next to you. If you don't get someone's consent and go ahead and grope them anyway, it's absolutely sexual assault.

      You don't get a pass on nonconsensual behaviour just because you thought someone near you was sexually attractive. If you honestly think that you should, then you're a big part of the problem. And if you think it's such a fucking hardship to get consent, then I shudder to think of how you've treated any woman you've ever wanted to date.

    23. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody is off their meds today.

      You may or may not be desirable sexually but the payday she can pick up by suing your employer turns that into a complete idiot move no matter what.

      Think about it, she will get six or seven figures for a few words you really want to take the chance she won't pull the trigger ?

    24. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by dbIII · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's all moot because false sexual misconduct claims are about as rare as bigfoot. The prospect of a claimant having to face a hostile courtroom where she's assumed to be a hooker pulling a scam before she even turns up tends to put people off.

    25. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by bistromath007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck off with this. There is a point beyond which nonconsent needs to be explicit; sharing a bed is exactly that point. "Sleeping with" somebody is used almost solely as euphemism for screwing in our language for a reason. Allowing that kind of intimacy is already saying "let's do this." If that isn't what you mean, you have to actually say so.

    26. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "No. You ask; you don't assume there's some unspoken green light just because someone laid down next to you. If you don't get someone's consent and go ahead and grope them anyway, it's absolutely sexual assault."

      I shudder to think of the poor service you've been giving your women. You absolutely never ever "ask".

      You touch her hand. You stroke her forearm. You touch her face. You touch your face to hers. You run your hand from her shoulder down do the small of her back while breathing hotly on her neck.

      You run your hand over her hip and down the outside of her thigh, then, at the knee, you come up the middle of her hamstring and over her outer buttock to the small of her back. The next down stroke goes right down the middle and your grab her buttocks *hard* and she gasps.

      Note that you are constantly measuring her physical reaction and will abort at the slightest hint of apprehension on her part, and you still haven't kissed...

      Once you do kiss, it will be amazing, and you will absolutely have consent.

      But Jesus Fucking Christ. You never *ask* (verbally).

      Well, OK, sometimes you can say, "So, you wanna?", and that works too.

    27. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by murdocj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you start dating you'll understand that you don't get a signed consent form when you have sex. It doesn't generally work that way.

    28. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point darwin takes over no matter how thickly you layer the socjus..

    29. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please see my AC reply below about how to seduce a woman.

      Just because you're in the same bed does not mean you're allowed to be an incompetent lover.

      Lying next to a woman is not consent to your hamfisted fuck stylings.

      Lying next to a woman is an invitation to seduce her. Seduce her, or wear the shame of failing to do so.

    30. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In civilized countries, defendants are innocent until proven guilty and prefer to let guilty people go to avoid incarcerating the innocent. Witchhunts and wild accusations are not tolerated. This seems to apply especially in this case as a lot of the high profile ones turned out to be made up shit..and the men weren't exonerated even after they came to light.

      Get a clue.

    31. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by damienl451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The story about the woman who wake up to him fingering her clearly states that she had explained to him on many occasions that he could share her bed as a friend, but that it did not constitute an invitation to have sex. If you go to bed with someone and nothing happens when they're awake and able to consent, why would assume that they're totally down for sex now that they're asleep? Also : even if you're involved with someone, even if you're sleeping in the same bed, this does not mean they're available for sex 24/7. There's such a thing as marital rape.

    32. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they are not that rare. I suspect how things go work out differently depending on where you live, if you compare your average american-football-player-turned-rapist and e.g the ordeal of Assange, but I'd never share a room with a female co-worker for exactly that reason.

      One simple lie, and you're in such a hassle you wouldn't believe it. And then basically you have to prove your innocence and that she's a big fat liar. And even if you manage that, you're still screwed because people will still believe, and act according to that. That's a way too big a gun for me to trust anyone with.

    33. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Informative

      If by "rare as bigfoot" you mean "a plurality of studies have found them to be at least 20% of accusations" then sure

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    34. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some studies have found that most such claims are false.

    35. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex without consent is rape. Period. No exceptions. University of Oregon website:

      Rape is vaginal, anal and/or oral penetration without consent. Fondling is any sexual contact without consent. Consent is a free and clearly given yes, not the absence of a no, and cannot be received when a person is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs.

      I shudder to think how many women you've raped.

      Do you really think your father got a signed consent form from your mother before he fucked her?

      And you wonder why you don't get laid...

    36. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Any other adult? Or just one of the sex you tend to prefer to sleep with?

      Should try going camping in the mountains in spring time and forget enough blankets. I lucked out and someone else couldn't find their tent (arrived late, someone else had set it up, kind of funny really) and bunked in mine.

      Was not someone I would ever want to have sex with, but let me tell you we spent about 6 hours hanging on to eachother for what seemed like dear life. Seemed like every 20 minutes the night got colder.

      Not sure it was a life threatening cold, but, it was certainly a much bigger concern than whether I would want to stick my dick in the only source of heat I had. Hell, I would have brought more people in if I could (or, you know... some more blankets; I would totally have replaced the heat source with like two blankets or a well insulated sleeping bag)

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    37. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he could share her bed as a friend, but that it did not constitute an invitation to have sex.

      Sounds like an invitation to entrapment to me.
      But to be fair if Applebaum was stupid enough to bite on that bait, he deserves to get creamed.

    38. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What adult in their right mind sleeps in the same bed with another grown person of the opposite sex, then gets suprised to be frisked? Maybe I just wasn't raised the same way.

      I should guess you weren't, since the former hardly raised (or raises) an eybrow in certain times and places. Never thought I'd actually ever say that, but perhaps you may be proving the point of people calling for males to be taught to behave in a certain, better way, if you're making such mental leaps as assuming permission to do things that you weren't actually permitted to do, on the basis of your spurious perception?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    39. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apparently, according to the other comment above, an acknowledgement-of-non-consent form should have been signed by him instead, so it indeed doesn't work "that way" in this case.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    40. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      When you start dating you'll understand that you don't get a signed consent form when you have sex. It doesn't generally work that way.

      No, it doesn't, and it's sad. The perverts often have something vaguely equivalent: a checklist of things that people are or aren't interested in, which is often handed off before playing with someone the first time. Too bad straights think that's weird.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you start dating you'll understand that you don't get a signed consent form when you have sex. It doesn't generally work that way.

      Today, it needs to. I would not even begin to consider sex with a woman without a notarised and witnessed signed consent form. It just isn't worth the risk without it.

      The risk to reward ratio is just way too high. My right hand is not going to change its mind tomorrow and decide it to wants to ruin my life.

    42. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But does that include cases where any sexual activity has actually happened, or does it include only those cases where there has been no contact at all and a close acquaintance of yours is fabulating? I'd assume the latter to be a proper subset of the former, but I'd be surprised if there were studies aimed specifically for that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    43. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, Jacob. ioerror, whatever you're calling yourself to duck questions from the cops these days.

      To think that people were calling you "the most dangerous man on the Internet" for a few minutes or so. Tsk tsk. This coming from a man who named his personal server "rinzaya," an underage anime character that will probably get you on a watch list if you even do a Google search for the term.

      There's nothing dangerous about you. Nothing innocent either, but certainly nothing dangerous. You're just a pathetic, pedophile SJW who thought that his small modicum of fame meant that he could play out his sexual aggression upon whoever he pleased.

      Anyone who wants to meet the real Jacob, please visit:

      jacobappelbaum.net

      Appelbaum is a run-of-the-mill pedophile with delusions of grandeur. Nothing more, nothing less. That delusion has just been shattered by his victims. I can't say I feel sorry for him.

    44. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Where is the "buy T-shits mugs and other merchandise" button ?

    45. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Except he has never been officially charged with anything, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. He was simply fired from his job. If you sexually harrass someone at your office, you can get fired based on their word alone because the bar for evidence is not the same as a legal proceeding. This is normal.

    46. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by cryptizard · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except that is compete bullshit that you just made up. Citation needed.

    47. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck shares a room on a BUSINESS trip?

    48. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by rastos1 · · Score: 2

      I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    49. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Informative

      Stewart (1981)
      Maclean (1979)
      Gregory and Lees (1996)
      Kanin (1994)
      Jordan (2004)
      Grace et al. (1992)
      Chambers and Millar (1983)
      Philadelphia police study (1968)
      McCahill et al. (1979)

      all rates from 90% down to 18% false. If you extend the floor to 10% then the plurality becomes a majority. The only people pushing the "false accusations don't exist" claim are the same people who support a reversal of the burden of proof, "listen and believe" lynch mobbing, and the mathematically absurd claims that virtually every woman in the united states has been or will be raped.

      In other words ideologues who directly profit in money, prestige, and social influence by controlling women through fear.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    50. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      "In civilized countries, defendants are innocent until proven guilty "

      This does not apply in sexual harassment cases. A man has to quit his job on accusation and then manage whatever legal assistance he can muster from the unemployment line.

    51. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Squeal like a pig! Wheeee!

    52. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That definition of consent makes all males and females that anytime in their life had sex without a "clearly given yes, not the absence of a no", rapists.

      In other words, that definition implies that almost 100% of the population are rapist.

      May be that definition of consent is not accurate even close to what the society understand and uses as consent?

    53. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What adult in their right mind sleeps in the same bed with another grown person of the opposite sex, then gets suprised to be frisked?

      Most should be. Physical proximity does not equal consent for anything beside sharing body heat.

      I wouldn't even share a hotel room with another adult besides a explicit SO

      This should be your right, and screw the employer who doesn't respect that.

    54. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to victim blame. So women who wear short shorts and midriff baring tops deserve it when some a-hole rapes them? No, they don't. In the same fashion just because someone decides to sleep somewhere does not indicate consent for anything but sleep. Just because the person put themselves into a situation where there is danger doesn't absolve the bad deed doer from their bad deeds. Wake up people!

    55. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by dbIII · · Score: 1

      One in five? Seriously? How dumb do you think we are?

    56. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Or many dangerous people (the ones who like to snub the law) have little respect for it and other people and may be guilty of other crimes as well.
      Just because you happen to agree with a political view doesn't make these people nice people.
      If someone big on trying to change the system has a lot of personality to try to make the change, this personality also causes many bad behaviors as well. Because there is a fine line between I must fight for what I think is right, vs everything I think is right.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    57. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by dbIII · · Score: 1, Troll

      I seem to remember a lot of "false" claims about Bill Crosby and Phil Spector that no longer sound so false. There were "false" claims against Jimmy Saville to well over a dozen police stations over the years.
      How about you quote a relevant portion of one of those things you've name dropped to show that it really says what you are suggesting it does. Don't try the cowardly weasel trick of suggesting that all cases dropped due to lack of evidence or similar reasons are false claims - a false claim is a claim that has been proved to be false.

    58. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb enough to have to enlist to you simple facts that you could had googled yourself.

    59. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's kind of a ginormous gray area.

      Sexual advances imply some risk. If you're on the couch with some girl and you want to get frisky, asking bluntly is... not attractive. At all. It's more likely to get you a sharp "no" (or a laugh at how hilariously stupid you are, and a signal to pretend you were just kidding and never talk about this again) than sliding up, slipping an arm around her, and physically presenting the suggestion that she should "get closer"... you know, *closer*. A *lot* closer.

      An arm around someone might seem innocuous, but *touching* someone can be *extremely* upsetting. Run a finger down a girl's arm when she's not open to a sexual advance and she'll take the intimate suggestion in full meaning--and immediately want to be *far* away from you. You might as well grab her tits; the only real difference is we've got some social conventions where we've acknowledged this boundary is okay to break, *that* boundary is you being an asshole, and so you have a way to step across a line while clearly signalling that you're harmless and willing to back off if it ain't working. With all that in mind, slinging an arm around a girl is possessive and intimate, which is a *lot* of presumption.

      Possessive and intimate will get you good responses where a blunt query will get you laughed at. They'll also get you bad responses, because if the answer is no then you've just done something *extremely* uncomfortable to someone.

      This extends even when you've got a girl in bed. You can't just go pushing your boxers up to her and groping at her tits if you haven't acknowledged how far this is going. You have to push the right buttons, and she might put the brakes on anyway because she's just not looking to go that far. Pushing those buttons, of course, carries risk; and drawing up the legal framework beforehand is really awkward and uncomfortable for all parties involved. Everyone really wants to go in blind and see what comes out the other end, but they also don't want to get pulled into something that's beyond their comfort level at that exact moment; the fact that your comfort level changes moment-to-moment makes this impossible to spec out ahead of time unless you're either well into the "no physical contact" stage or blatantly getting together to hook up.

      All that said, some people keep pushing--hard--when they've gotten push-back. That's harassment. Today we've taken the harassment to social minefield levels, where getting distracted by a girl's showy dress can get you pulled into HR for looking at her tits and ass for 1 second, because of course you would.

      Fortunately for me, my peculiar mix of psychiatric defects automatically disables sexual attraction in professional contexts (and most other contexts). I simply don't like interacting with people. Prosopagnosia... don't even remember what my parents's faces look like WHILE I'M TALKING TO THEM. SPD ... I don't have any emotional attachment to any human being. My academic understanding of all this crap doesn't translate to any form of social skill set, so I'm not picking up girls like crazy; even if I could, I wouldn't bother, because it's too much strain trying to satisfy the complex social needs of that kind of interaction. No romance, no emotional needs, and no particular sexual attraction means I can just skip out on all that bullshit. I guess normal people would consider that some kind of giant hole in their lives, but it doesn't really occur to me.

    60. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      I literally already posted over a half dozen studies backing that up.

      And the answer is I find the idea 1 in 5 accusations are false a lot more believable than the idea that almost every single woman in the US has been or will be raped.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    61. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Troll

      Going right from "we're in the same bed" to "I PENIS U!" is kind of a jarring shift. Have you tried snuggling up first and nudging at the comfort barriers to see if she decides you need to back off?

    62. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

      Don't try the cowardly weasel trick of suggesting that all cases dropped due to lack of evidence or similar reasons are false claims - a false claim is a claim that has been proved to be false.

      Congratulations, this is how lynch mobs work. You have the presumption of innocence backwards, it's the accusers job to prove guilt. You're the one relying on the deplorable and frightening weasel trick of claiming that all non-convictions are simply guilty people that got away.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    63. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Khyber · · Score: 1

      So, when I lie on my back, say nothing, and the bitch climbs up on my dick, again no words spoken, I'm raping her?

      Thank you for proving that the University of Oregon is way the fuck behind the times, and stupid as shit to boot.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    64. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by NathanWoodruff · · Score: 1

      You have ZERO(0) idea what you are talking about. Notice that I am not posting anonymous. Read the court documents... http://www.gwinnettcourts.com/...

      She claimed that I raped her. She then claimed that I wanted to murder her... Read the final document where the court dismisses the entire thing and why.

      The reason why she did that is because she didn't want me to have any thing to do with my son... Read this court document... http://www.gwinnettcourts.com/...

      Yet she wanted 25% of my income for the next 18 years.

      Previous girl friend that lived with me called the cops and claimed that I raped her when I wasn't even home. The cops showed up before I got home from work that evening and were waiting for me. They smelled something fishy and handcuffed me and put me in the back of a patrol car. I told police that I had no idea why she did that.

      They took me to a near by police station where I called her and asked her why, while recording the conversation. She said that she was ending the relationship with me and moving her stuff out and wanted to take the brand new LCD tv that I had just purchased and needed me out of the house all night so she could do that.

      The police let me go and ended up arresting her. I have searched the website but have come up empty as this happened in 2002.

      To make a long story short.... All women lie.

      Nathan

    65. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Sex without consent is rape. Period. No exceptions.

      That is an idealistic fantasy. In real life, it is complicated, "no" often means "yes", and that is especially true the first time a couple has sex. Women have been conditioned to appear chaste, and not too willing. Many women expect the man to take the initiative, and may be offended if he asks them for explicit consent. The first time I had sex with my last girlfriend, she was saying "no, no, no" while giggling and helping me unbutton her clothes. We are now happily married with two kids.

    66. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If the person you are dating has blue or purple hair you would be insane not to get a signed and witnessed consent form. Each and every time.

      Yes that is going to put a damper on the relationship...

    67. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Problem with the place we had booked, and since it was Hong Kong right after Chinese New year, everything was full or close to it. So we spent a night in the "executive suite" at the Cosmopolitan, enjoyed the view, and got the admin lady to find us another place to stay (with separate rooms) the next day.

    68. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      so you think sleeping in the same bed as your mum/sister/brother is also a prelude to sex with them? :o)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    69. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are either a virgin or a creepy rapist.

    70. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So have I, same result. But this was with a coworker I knew well, and trusted. If I hadn't known her, I expect I would have gotten a separate room: it's just too much of a risk to give a random person the ability to casually destroy my career with an accusation.

    71. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but if you have to explain to a guy "on many occasions" that you're not interested in sex, but you insist on sharing a bed with him anyway, then I have zero sympathy if he decides to take advantage and grope you. You're really asking for it. (The "many occasions" bit there implies that this wasn't a surprise, one-time thing.)

      Simple rule: if you're a female, and a male who has an obvious sexual interest in you wants to share a bed with you, and you don't have that same interest, (and you don't have complete trust in this guy to respect your boundaries based on long experience with him to know his character) find another bed.

    72. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, and cide writtem by a rapist us just as good as by a nin-rapist because whether or not someone rapes women has nothing to do with code quality. I frankly do not give a shit, this is a non-story. I don't care,whether you are a pedophile or not unless I'm letting you babysit my daughter.

    73. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      It's what happens when you let SJW's write policy though.

    74. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you're on the couch with some girl and you want to get frisky, asking bluntly is... not attractive. At all. It's more likely to get you a sharp "no" (or a laugh at how hilariously stupid you are, and a signal to pretend you were just kidding and never talk about this again)

      It probably depends on the girl. If she's one of today's 4th-wave feminists, she'll be pissed you didn't ask for explicit consent first. Of course, this same girl probably isn't someone any normal guy would have any physical attraction to anyway....

    75. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      The entire thing smells like a psyop. One of the key figures herself debunked one of the bigger lies from her view as the first party.

    76. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      It doesn't absolve the bad deed doer of their bad deeds, but it does make it pretty much impossible (short of a recording) for the "victim" to prove her case, rather than it being a typical he-said-she-said.

      If you don't want to be abused, don't willingly put yourself in a situation where you're likely to be abused.

      I'm sorry, if some girl complains to me that she decided to jump in bed with some guy she wasn't interested in, and then got groped, I have zero sympathy. She put herself into a bad situation there willingly. Beds are intimate places to share with people; don't share one with someone if you're not on intimate terms with them, or at least reserve it for someone you have absolute trust in (e.g. your guy-friend of 10 years who's always respected your boundaries is probably a safe bet; some guy you barely know and who obviously has a sexual interest in you is definitely not).

    77. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Except he has never been officially charged with anything, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. He was simply fired from his job.

      Wrong. He was not only fired from his job, but he's been publicly defamed and accused of this. He actually has a good case for a defamation or libel suit.

    78. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Well if it is on the University of Oregons website it MUST be true! I guess they are the law now. Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

    79. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Like I said: reasonable, and carries risk.

    80. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point is, if you're going to be freaked out by the other person trying a sexual advance, why in hell did you get laid in the same bed to begin with?

    81. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by rochrist · · Score: 1

      +1

    82. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by rochrist · · Score: 1

      -1000

    83. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by rochrist · · Score: 1

      No. He doesn't.

    84. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 2

      Sorry, that's pressuring a woman into sex. Please check yourself into the nearest university's rape culture presentation as soon as possible.

      You have to do the Schrodinger's Rapist dance correctly to even say "hello" to a woman without it being sexual harassment. I assume if you find the actual article (not at that link) they outline what the exact steps are. I don't really have any reason to go find out for myself.

      But yes, generally I prefer guys use your method with me over whatever the hell you're supposed to do to get consent from a woman without it being rape. Perhaps a lawyer here somewhere can draw up a Durable Consent to Intercourse contract. No, a marriage ring won't work. You need a Durable Consent to Intercourse on top of the ring.

      You should also make sure to have her drug tested and give her a breathalyzer immediately before intercourse, because the presence of any drugs or alcohol automatically makes it date rape. I'm not sure what the BAC limit is, but I'd recommend zero tolerance to be safe. If she fails either test, immediately vacate the premise.

      I think you also need to affirm consent every 15-20 seconds during the act, but I'm not sure on that part. It could be more frequently. If the response is any less than an enthusiastic yes or if there is any ambiguity, immediately stop, put your clothes on, and vacate the premise.

      "So you wanna?" is not likely to elicit an enthusiastic yes, so I doubt it could ever work.

      They cover all of this in rape culture training. This is pretty basic stuff. There are other rules such as avoiding the presence of women after dark, especially a woman who's walking alone. Do not make eye contact. Do not allow her to come within 100 feet of you. If she's attacked, do not attempt to intervene (you'll automatically, by policy, be considered complicit in the attack).

      At least that was my take away from rape culture training. If that prevents women from having a good time, that's their fucking problem. Boo hoo.

      Grand Valley State University if you must know. No, they don't advertise this.

    85. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by sdguero · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I read a couple stories and they made my head hurt.

      "Jacob invited me into the bathtub and I didn't get in but it made me uncorftable even though I was in the bathroom with him, maybe it was because I was so hungover."

      "Jacob shamed me in public once."

      The sad thing is that these are supposedly the people at the front lines now, fighting against censorship. No wonder we're losing.

    86. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People taking drugs and sleeping in the same bed are the rape victims I imagine.

      Who were the other two people fired during the investigation?

    87. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Too bad straights think that's weird.

      If a woman is already turned off just by asking them what they'd like me to do or not do after I tie them to the bed, then they're way too vanilla for me.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    88. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by StikyPad · · Score: 1, Interesting

      i say that to girls all the time. It works *amazingly* well at getting them to be the aggressors. "Now look, just because I'm letting you sleep over doesn't mean we're going to have sex!" I have yet to meet one who hasn't taken that as a challenge.

      Anyway, yes, it's a double standard. You can either try to change the nature of women, or just go with it. I'll let you figure out which works better.

    89. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that the problem. Generally, there are a lot of sexual misconduct and assault. So, generally, it needs to change. Simple. All the remaining blabla is just ego problems

    90. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What blows my mind about slashdot recently is the fact that someone being a petulant child screaming "citation needed" and calling bullshit will be modded up higher than the actual citation. Thus the majority will believe that there is no citation when nine were presented.

      What good is slashdot when slashdot does not value facts?

    91. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Literally already posted about a half dozen or more studies ranging from 18% on up into the 40s.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    92. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile every other major high profile rape case falls into shambles, if they ever happened at all (UVA comes to mind).

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    93. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, she is raping you. When she's done, fall asleep, make breakfast in bed, ask her if she wants to walk on the beach, then call the police!

    94. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'My' women. Uh huh. But let's move on and get to the part where "You absolutely never ever "ask"."

      If you touch a woman's hand and she didn't invite it, you've already overstepped. You don't get to decide for her how much physical contact is appropriate and when she's going to get it - that's her call, not yours. 'Constantly measuring her physical reaction' doesn't mean squat when you've already ignored the very real likelihood that she never wanted to be touched at all. That makes it a lot more likely that you're going to ignore signs that mean 'no' or interpret them in a way that favours you continuing to move forward.

      All of which is a side issue with the above scenario, where she was asleep before he started touching her. You know, where she couldn't give consent at all, verbal or non-verbal.

      Guys like you understand the concept of consent and not touching strangers perfectly... when it's other guys. You see a woman, though, and all of a sudden the rules change.

      Newsflash, sport: your desire doesn't trump her autonomy, ever.

    95. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Khyber · · Score: 1

      And it looks like those studies of yours are from the late 90s, same time frame as my source from the USDOJ.

      So, you got anything more recent to back those claims up?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    96. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't get a 'yes,' you don't move forward. It's not difficult.

      Stick to that rule and the worst that happens is that you don't get to have sex when you really wanted to. Ignore it, and the worst that happens is you rape someone. I know which outcome is the one that should be avoided at all costs.

    97. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you start dating people you think of as people, you'll find that consent isn't a hardship to get, nor does it require some mythical signed contract.

      It does make things more fun, though. What with everyone being into the activity and all, rather than asleep or otherwise, you know, NOT into it.

    98. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      If you touch a woman's hand and she didn't invite it, you've already overstepped.

      You do not use public transport much, do you?

    99. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      It's nice that you pulled the papers from Rumney (2006) that agree with your worldview, but you ignore the actual conclusions from that meta study itself. Police judgement of "no crime" does not mean that it was a false accusation, only they they chose to stop investigating it. That could mean there wasn't enough evidence, or the police arbitrarily decided they didn't give a shit (which is why all the studies you link are quite old, when rape was taken less seriously). There is no way to judge from those studies what the rate of false accusations is. Nice try though. I especially like the part where in the Maclean study he deems one instance a false allegation because the victim didn't look "disheveled" enough to have been raped. Solid science there.

    100. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      You realize that the guy you are referencing just went to wikipedia and copied a number of studies that appear support his claim, without including the overarching summary written there that basically said, "these studies are examples of bad science." Think for yourself some time maybe.

    101. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "On some work trips I've happily shared a hotel room (with dual beds) with a co-worker (so we could be cheap and stick around the town for a few more days)... given neither of us are into men, the likelihood of one accusing the other of anything untward is near nil." If your company wouldn't bear the financial risk of boarding a male and female coworker together even if they don't have compatible sexual orientations, there is no reason they shouldn't spring for separate rooms for all employees. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that someone is accused of making advances as a closeted person or open homosexuals be accused of straying from their orientation.

    102. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Neither "fired from his job" nor "publicly defamed and accused" are the same as "charged."

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    103. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent should be modded +5, infomative, not -1, flamebait, although the though of needing to write this metacomment made me laughing out loud.

    104. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      How does that logic work?

      1. Steal the word Hipster from who spoke it
      2. ...
      3. Profit!

    105. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Maybe JA was trying to laid, frankly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

      If you wanted to get laid, and you didn't have permission from the other party, but you tried to make it happen anyways... yeah, there is a lot wrong with that.

      If you don't have another person's permission... try alone, by yourself. You can hopefully make something happen for yourself.

      If you're not even dating the person, and you actually know them through your work... you should not be trying at all. The first step is, is this person even willing to have private social alone-time with you? No? Then you shouldn't be "trying to get laid" with them. If they agree to hang out alone in private during off-work hours, then you have an opportunity to proposition them.

    106. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that that isn't consistent with the legal definition, or are you just throwing up your hands and saying you don't know and don't know how to check?

      I'll give you a hint though, the University of Oregon has the only public law school in the State, and the State has a very high per-capita number of lawyers...

    107. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Too bad straights think that's weird.

      If a woman is already turned off just by asking them what they'd like me to do or not do after I tie them to the bed, then they're way too vanilla for me.

      A tiny snippet from my life...

      "Should we have a safe word or something?"

      "No"

      "How do I know if you're OK?"

      "If I pass out, let go."

    108. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If there is a gray area, that means you didn't have consent.

      If you have consent, it is very unlikely you'll need to get it in writing, or recount a magic set of words. The whole premise shows that the requisite level of intimacy to begin the act hasn't been developed between you. Or in baseball terms, you don't steal home base from the batters box. You have to get to first base, then second base, then third base. If you never made it to first base, you never had a nice date, then you don't get a goodbye kiss; if you never got a goodbye kiss, you shouldn't be trying to laid. Of course a blunt query will get laughed at, just like a batter stepping up to the plate, reaching his foot out and touching home base, and asking the umpire, "that's a score, right?" will get laughed at... if you're lucky.

      And getting distracted at work should always get you sent to HR. It is your responsibility to pay attention to your job while at work. You can't push that onto somebody else. "Sexy women exist in the world" is not an excuse to be distracted at work.

      The part you seem to miss is: things that don't occur to you... are things you don't know anything about.

    109. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      For Americans who think of "backpacking" as a type of wilderness camping, this use of the word translates to "traveling by bus or train and staying in hostels (which are a type of hotel dormitory that you share with strangers)"

    110. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'm so tired of hearing this nonsense. I spend a lot of time in the woods, and there are lots of Bigfoot. Idiots see them all the time and think they are this imaginary creature called the Black Bear, but that's because Bigfoot are smart enough to stoop over when they see a human.

    111. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Shorter version of your story:

      1 equals infinity, blame women.

    112. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Who else but nerds take the time to throw the rubber chicken, and ask the rubber ducky? Why would nerds care if these supposed "real" people understand what they're seeing?

    113. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Cederic · · Score: 1

      erm. I've shared a mattress with another bloke. With another six blokes in the room.

      Maybe I slept through it, but I don't recall any fondling, let alone full-on balls bouncing off cheeks type action.

      I did get up at 5am and go have coffee with house owner's mother though.

    114. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah. By the time she's in bed with you, either you can't avoid sexual activity or she very clearly doesn't want it.

      Never yet met a woman that'll lie there next to you going, "Why isn't he asking me?"

      (Lying there going, "Why did I agree to this?" or "Did he just fart?" however..)

    115. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like anyone crying rape this day and age is full of shit.

      See, anyone can argue with fallacies.

      Ok, I will see your idiotic comment and raise you this:

      That can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

      Now go back to your video games in your mom's basement!

    116. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AmiMoJo or PopeRatzo, which one are you?

    117. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      get laid

      ...phrasing?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    118. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So where are those relevant quotes then?

    119. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You dropped names. No "backing up" at all. Surely you can do better than that and provide some actual content instead of just dropping names or being evasive and as with your other post.

    120. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So in other words you are equating case dismissal due to potentially a wide range of reasons to a "false claim" and have become angry when your petty little trick has been seen through?
      Yes or no?
      What are you using to establish that a claim is actually false?

    121. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this post is superb. Not for the point you're making in and of itself, but because I can't help but wonder why it's modded at +3 right now (is there a way to see the mod history?). I keep looking through it and thinking, if we start at the beginning, I wonder what sentence we'd have to cut if off at to take it from +3 to -1. Or is it maybe that it's coming from someone whose username is widely recognized (I assume, because I do recognize it)? Fucking fascinating.

    122. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC because I dont want to risk my job: If you know someone whos a forensic psychologist, get them to read the victim statements and provide an opinion on what sort of person Applebaum is. Several of those statements are describing an encounter with someone with strong indications of a cluster B personality disorder. In non-clinical terms, a psychopath.

    123. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These percentages should be taken as an approximate minimum, rather than a direct measure. A majority of studies find the false accusation rate is at least ~10%, and the court conviction rate of ~5% indicates that the false accusation rate is no more than ~95%, but that still leaves a lot of room: the false accusation rate could be anywhere in the range 10-95%.

    124. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alex, we know you talk like this online because if you did this to someone face to face, your scrawny little ass would get kicked. Be careful, little man, or someone is going to get fed up with you one of these days, find you and deal with you.

    125. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in other words his statement was correct. You, then, Alex, trying to look like an expert pulled up the first google search result, fly off the handle in your little PMS episode and don't acknowledge that he has already researched this and has backing for his number.

      You are a grade A failure at life little Alex. Get professional help.

    126. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Getting to first base requires consent. Finding out if you have consent requires testing that consent.

    127. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If I pass out, let go."

      Hold this handful of marbles/bells.

    128. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because a woman from work concedes to share a hotel bed with you, doesn't mean you get to grope her, you fucking scoundrels.

      When a woman wants you to touch her, she'll let you know. Otherwise, she doesn't. Way to empathize with the serial molester though.

    129. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      See, you admit you aren't capable of understanding on your own, but then instead of trying to learn when it is explained to you, you just argue from assertion. It isn't because of the mental state you were born with that you don't understand this; it is because you're willfully ignorant.

    130. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, use of the word "SJW" is an asshole red flag. Luckily I've only heard insecure losers on the internet use it, not anyone in real life.

    131. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said it because you're a rapist, and your sister/brother/mom ate the only ones you might sleep with.

      Just FYI, it's not weird for a man and woman who are friends to share a bed sometimes. If you start fondling her when she's asleep, that assault dude. Pretty fuckin cowardly too.

    132. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this SJW logic and what is wrong with it? You claim to praise logic but you don't use any in your post.

      TomG

    133. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Did you grow up in an Islamist country? Even then you have to accept that this is not how it works in a liberal society. Sleeping in a bed with someone isn't permission to fondle them.

    134. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by PaulRivers10 · · Score: 1

      I wish I was a woman where apparently sex just falls out the sky every 2 seconds so it doesn't matter if you miss a bunch. But in a guys reality, the worst that happens is actually that she assumes that you don't like her because you "could" have made a move and didn't, so she goes and sleeps with someone else. Now he's her boyfriend, there's never again an opening to date her and they get married and have kids, but only after your continued interest in her means you don't pursue other girls and she subtley scares other girls away - until after you're out of college and no longer surrounded by women at which time she slowly cuts off contact with you because it would be "weird" as she is married now and you're left with an empty dead end job and no romantic prospects in your 30's wondering where you went wrong. One day another guy from your college friend group adds you on facebook, you get together to talk, he tells you about how she talked all the time about how much she liked you, and was really upset you didn't make the move you were supposed to, so she got herself drunk at a party and fucked the guy from her biology class who wasn't as nieve as you - that's her husband now. Then you realize that some people just use "rape" as an excuse to be narcissistic assholes on the internet.

    135. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah totally women love baiting men into being raped. Anyone who had talked to a rape survivor would know that... Having your dignity talked away is like totally fun

    136. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to empathize with the rapist bro. She works with and respects the guy. She wanted to not make a big deal of his advances. She just needed a place to sleep.

      If you're a man, and a woman has repeatedly told you she doesn't want you to touch her, and you grab her pussy while she's asleep, you're a SCUMBAG RAPIST, and you should be in fucking jail.

      And if you have"no sympathy" for her, you're a shot excuse for a man.

    137. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound pretty pathetic Paul. If your missing opportunities with women, maybe it's your attitude. Maybe you should look at them as people, instead of sacred sex objects, and stop feeling so sorry for yourself. It's on you man. Hope you change.

    138. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just try moving in for a kiss, weirdo. If she goes for it, move on to step 2. It's not fucking rocket science. And yes, it's okay to verbalize things.

    139. Re: Rule of thumb: believe the man by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you're a man, and a woman has repeatedly told you she doesn't want you to touch her, and you grab her pussy while she's asleep, you're a SCUMBAG RAPIST, and you should be in fucking jail.

      And how exactly do you intend to prove her allegations? Make it a requirement that every bed have a government-operated camera monitoring it 24x7? Because that's the only way you can prove such allegations.

      Until that day comes, a smart woman will avoid putting herself into these situations. And if you're too stupid to understand this, then you're a shit excuse for a human.

    140. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The short version of your statement is "you're a dumbass."

      The fact of the matter is PUTTING A HAND ON A GIRL'S SHOULDER is an invasive action, and can make her uncomfortable, and, if unwanted, CAN BE AN ASSAULT. Attempting to do so is a test of consent, and can--and does--get pushback. This is normal human behavior.

      Your assertion is that you're supposed to ask before every little thing like moving closer, touching, or whatnot. A lot of actions are intimate and invasive, and nobody asks before doing them because the direct probe does something which people describe as "ruining the mood." It's been acknowledged that you're specifically not supposed to be a dork and ruin the mood; you're supposed to test boundaries. That's how normal human beings who aren't verbally negotiating an explicit consent contract operate--as in every human being who doesn't suffer from severe mental defects.

  2. Where's the civil and or criminal cases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A "confirmation" from an internal corporate investigation is worth about as much as my toilet.

    1. Re:Where's the civil and or criminal cases? by mscdex · · Score: 1

      A "confirmation" from an internal corporate investigation is worth about as much as my toilet.

      How much is your toilet worth?

    2. Re:Where's the civil and or criminal cases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toilets are expensive, yo.

    3. Re: Where's the civil and or criminal cases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much is your arse worth?

    4. Re: Where's the civil and or criminal cases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      three fiddy

    5. Re:Where's the civil and or criminal cases? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      How much is your toilet worth?

      Based on his previous declaration, he dug a hole in his backyard.

    6. Re:Where's the civil and or criminal cases? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      A "confirmation" from an internal corporate investigation is worth about as much as my toilet.

      On the other hand, for a company/organisation to come out in public with a statement like this is very risky indeed, unless they are able to back it up with substantial evidence. All Mr Appelbaum has to do is take them to court for X million of the currency of his choice; I'm sure there are plenty of no win, no fee lawyers who would take it on, if it had any prospect of succeeding at all. Perhaps he will do so, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

    7. Re:Where's the civil and or criminal cases? by Lisias · · Score: 1

      A "confirmation" from an internal corporate investigation is worth about as much as my toilet.

      On the other hand, for a company/organisation to come out in public with a statement like this is very risky indeed, unless they are able to back it up with substantial evidence.

      No, it's not risky. It's not risky at all.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  3. Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tor is backdoored. You can see that from the ease with which the Feds locate sites and users. Thus its one and only use: bringing free, anonymous, speech to people in repressive regimes, its ended.

    When a company first sacks someone facing no charges, then hires a PI to confirm their reason for sacking, even though he's not claiming wrongful dismissal. That pretty much tells you that the organization is stuff full of bad actors. They go beyond any allegations and into a hatchet job.

    And those bad actors delivered exactly what is expected. Good people gone, bad people in, product *demonstrably* no longer works for its primary purpose. When outside universities can point out 100 fake attack nodes, that Tor Project somehow didn't notice, that tells you they are more bad than good in there.

    So a new thing has to be made, and that new thing has to be made from trustable people. And that is Jacob.

    These "we slept together and he licked my muff and that's rape because I didn't agree before hand he could lick my muff, only share the bed"... these are Assange style attacks, they were disclosed in the Snowden leaks, and they just make him more, demonstrably honest:

    https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

    "By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. "

    Anonymous, secure, free speech trumps any of this shit, and a secure network delivered by a trusted person is necessary now. That's not Tor.

    1. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by nonsequitor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally know some of the people that came forward, they had no agenda other than stopping a serial sexual predator / harrasser. I was sad when I heard the story break, but not surprised because Jake's an asshole if you're not somebody. Where somebody is defined as a person whose work he can steal, someone to intoxicate and lure into bed, or someone that can enhance his reputation.

      Shame on you for suggesting otherwise, and shame on the mods who modded you up.

      Whether or not Tor is backdoored or otherwise compromised is a totally different issue. As for something new made by trustable people, Jacob doesn't have the technical ability to do a project like this on his own, he's a charming sociopath that worms his way into the circles of people that can. Good for Tor to give him the boot and cleaning house of the people who turned a blind eye to his misconduct.

    2. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Tor is backdoored. You can see that from the ease with which the Feds locate sites and users.

      Tor is open source, the project just manages the sources. You might be able sneak in some subtle exploits if you're in charge... but if the Feds are finding people it's more likely they've just set up a bunch of fake nodes.

      When a company first sacks someone facing no charges, then hires a PI to confirm their reason for sacking, even though he's not claiming wrongful dismissal. That pretty much tells you that the organization is stuff full of bad actors.

      Or the project is under intense scrutiny and suspicion so they want to cover their bases.

      And that is Jacob.

      These "we slept together and he licked my muff and that's rape because I didn't agree before hand he could lick my muff, only share the bed"...

      It's about consent, and sharing a bed with someone doesn't give you consent.

      Now in many cases that's an indication that they are interested, and in that case you can try to get consent. But just because you think they are interested in sex and you can get consent doesn't give you the right to shove your hand down their pants while they're asleep.

      these are Assange style attacks, they were disclosed in the Snowden leaks, and they just make him more, demonstrably honest:

      https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

      That's a theory, it's a theory to watch out for, it's possibly the reason why they hired the PI you were so concerned about, but the fact he was accused of misconduct isn't evidence that he was framed.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Jake's an asshole if you're not somebody. Where somebody is defined as a person whose work he can steal, someone to intoxicate and lure into bed, or someone that can enhance his reputation"

      i.e. hatchet job.
      He was claimed to have molested a woman at a party who was in distress. She says she was in distress because she'd lost her bag, it was mutual fondling. i.e. your hearsay claim of someone elses hearsay claim contradicts the ACTUAL VICTIM'S statement.

      You claim to be a friend of one of the claimants involved. But we have the claims outlined in detail on a website (in Jacobs name)! We can read them! We don't need to you paraphrase, misrepresent them as "sexual predator" the hatchet job is there in detail!

      He had a "budding romance" (as she put it) with him, he tried to coax her into the bath, she finally agrees, but only if she keeps her clothes on. He tries to wash her, that would be really romantic. Yet she's presents it as abuse. Tell me that's not JTRIG honeytrap?

      Another woman slept with him voluntarily, he tries to initiate sex, she rejects, he stops. ..... oooo what an abuser he is! Luring her into bed.... oh wait she invited him there. FFS. How obvious can you make it!?

      Another woman they were cuddling and touching, and someone claims she looked distressed (I look into the witness guy's background, he has UK security clearance FFS! He's spook!), and that it was abuse. SHE says no, it was mutual. Yet you continue to present the false hearsay claim as more valid than the actual 'victim'???

      "Whether or not Tor is backdoored or otherwise compromised is a totally different issue. As for something new made by trustable people, Jacob doesn't have the technical ability to do a project like this on his own, he's a charming SOCIOPATH that WORMS his way into the circles of people that can. Good for Tor to give him the boot and cleaning house of the people who turned a blind eye to his misconduct."

      Hatchet man, your hatchet is so obvious. Tor has received a bunch of volunteers who have backdoored the product, done JTRIG style attacks on the staff and you have today an anonymous network that isn't anonymous.

      Jacob needs to fix it. It's your duty Jacob, no matter what shit they try to throw at you.

    4. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I personally know some of the people that came forward, they had no agenda other than stopping a serial sexual predator / harrasser.

      How would we confirm any of this? Anecdotal people giving anecdotes, which you confirm with your belief, so we should believe you when you say so.

      Bullshit!

    5. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by nonsequitor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jacob is that you? Notice I am not posting anonymously.

      I didn't go into specifics because I wasn't there. There was no hearsay in my post. I've known Jacob since ~2007, so I can call him an ass without it being hearsay. I also did not go into specific details of any one story because they are not my stories, but I know several of the people who came forward and I know their only motivation was to stop Jacob from continuing to abuse people.

    6. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nick Farr and Leigh Honeywell came forward under their real names. Why don't you ask them?

    7. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now do the other three points.

    8. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for both of them, there's fifteen more who're too afraid to speak their own names!!

    9. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tor is backdoored.

      No. You don't understand what Tor is or what the vulnerabilities used by attackers are.

      Tor is secure. Where people have been located, it was due to bugs on the bundled browser and not following best security practices like disabling Javascript and not using a maximized browser window (to thwart canvas based fingerprinting). But the underlying network itself is secure.

      Don't mistake compromised Tor exit notes as flaws in the network. Tor was designed on the assumption that exit nodes would be compromised and are inherently untrustworthy. Even if you use Tor, you still need to encrypt the traffic leaving the exit node because, as the documentation makes extremely clear, the exit node can see everything that passes in and out of it.

      Once you understand what Tor is and the limits of what it does, you can see that it is highly effective and has proven secure.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jacob needs to fix it. It's your duty Jacob, no matter what shit they try to throw at you.

      I doubt this is going to happen. The community burned him, and even for separate reasons he was unhappy with the journalists he was having to deal with right up to all these allegations happening. The guy is probably sick and tired of it all. In fact his online absence makes me think this is accurate.

    11. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by damienl451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one with an idea of what a healthy consensual relationship looks like would describe the "bath" story as you did. When someone repeatedly says "no", you're not supposed to keep insisting as if "no" was just an invitation to keep asking. That's textbook rapist "she said no but her body was saying yes", "she was just playing hard to get". It's also not "romantic" to grab someone and start washing them when they've clearly said that they didn't want to take a bath with you. It's fascinating how the same BS keeps popping up all the time. "She was wearing a miniskirt, so she clearly wanted me to fondle her". "Why would she show cleavage if she didn't want me to grope her boobs". Rapists all over the world have been using this excuse that their victim was somehow messaging her availability, e.g. by not respecting whatever standard of decency they decided was appropriate. If someone offers to share a bed and specifically warns you that they're not interested in having sex with you, you just can't claim ignorance and say that you thought it was an invitation to have sex. And even if they don't, why not just ask?

    12. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus its one and only use: bringing free, anonymous, speech to people in repressive regimes, its ended.

      Spoken like an asshole that has never actually tried to use TOR in said places. Here's a clue, dipshit: It doesn't actually work. Those "repressive regimes" actively block TOR. Oh, bridge servers? Good luck finding ones that actually work. The few that do usually don't last longer than a few minutes. TOR is a fucking joke.

    13. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Actually, there is no evidence Tor is backdoored at all. The known attacks have all been explained nicely by verifiable vulnerabilities in other places and by entirely plausible user error. Seriously, stop spreading FUD.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And in addition, the TOR project explains all the ways you can de-anonymize yourself by mistake while using TOR. One of this things is trusting an exit-node.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they had no agenda other than stopping a serial sexual predator / harrasser.

      Bullshit, then why didn't they go straight to the cops?

      This is sexual assault we're talking about here. That's a felony offense. It's not something you go to corporate employee relations over. You go straight to the nearest police station / call the cops. If a guy at work is stabbed/shot, something is stolen, there's arson, a crazy guy in the hallway, you found a body, any of these things, you do not take them to HR/WR/PhBs. You call the cops.

      This story has political stink all over it. I. Am. Skeptical.

      captcha: latrine

    16. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the article is poop. It doesn't explain any of this. If you're going to can someone for something, then people want an explanation more nuanced than what is given in TFA. I think they deserve it, and they shouldn't depend on some random slashdotter to provide it. Frankly, the rest of us need this information so that we can make intelligent choices. If they know he's a shitheel but won't tell us specifically how, then they're doing us a disservice.

      They can't tell us "what he did" but they can describe the nature of the claims against him in more detail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand about opinions like yours is, if it really is some kind of government setup, why did they pick Jacob Abelbaum? He is not even close to a crucial part of Tor. There are lots of more important developers that they could have targeted instead. Besides the scandal of it, losing his developer abilities barely effects Tor at all.

    18. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by cryptizard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good people gone, bad people in

      Did you even read who the new board of directors is? Matt Blaze, an extremely respected academic cryptographer. Cindy Cohn, the director of the EFF. Bruce Schneier, a folk hero on Slashdot and no friend of the federal government. Stop fearmongering please.

    19. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by nonsequitor · · Score: 1

      https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/h...

      A first hand description of a harassment campaign he initiated.

      https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/...

      A first hand account of him ignoring the safe word during sex, which most would consider rape.

    20. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I look into the witness guy's background, he has UK security clearance FFS!

      Having UK security clearance is not that hard. I did for a while (though it's long-since lapsed). Anyone who works on any defence-related project is likely to have security clearance. Remember when Snowden released all of the things he could access and it turned out that over a million people in the USA had security clearance? The UK isn't that much more restrictive in who it hands our clearance to.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Shame on you for suggesting otherwise, and shame on the mods who modded you up.

      No, Shame on you for not posting relevant facts. I looked through the various links, and found really NOTHING of substance that describes what actually went on. It's all "he did something wrong". Ok, tell me what he did, and let ME decide if I think that was wrong.

      Again. shame on you.

    22. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that roster of wonderful names proves is that those talking heads like Schneier will say whatever it takes to get some government funding flowing their way.

    23. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Thank you, this stuff is actually useful. We could sub out most of the article with your comment and be better for it. And yes, I absolutely consider ignoring a safeword during sex to be rape. When you have negotiated specifically what means stop, you have set up an absolute condition which clearly demonstrates nonconsensuality.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't useful. This is why you are an idiot: that is just links to HTML on the internet. Anyone can put anything on the Internet. "First hand account" means nothing. For example you have been beating your wife for a long time. Why don't you stop? I have multiple first hand accounts of you beating your wife, yet it hasn't stopped. Why don't you stop?

    25. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jacob, nice to see you posting your self-justifying nonsense here so everyone can see it.

      Notice how the claims of "sexual aggression" are never defined, by either side. Classic "I like to sleep with the interns on company time" and "we're trying to keep this stuff out of the news to avoid losing all credibility, which we just lost anyway" bureaucracy handling such accusations.

    26. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No it isn't useful.

      Really? You don't find the specific allegations to be useful?

      This is why you are an idiot: that is just links to HTML on the internet. Anyone can put anything on the Internet.

      Yes. For example, cowards like you can post stupid comments like yours.

      "First hand account" means nothing.

      I strongly disagree. On the other hand, a comment left by an anonymous coward does mean nothing.

      For example you have been beating your wife for a long time. Why don't you stop? I have multiple first hand accounts of you beating your wife, yet it hasn't stopped. Why don't you stop?

      Well for one thing, I'm not married, so it's impossible for me to stop beating my wife. I don't have a wife. For another thing, an anonymous coward like yourself making unfounded claims is very different from a person with a name and an identity making specific allegations.

      My question was what the allegations were. The answer was clearly useful, as it linked to specific claims of specifically unacceptable behavior. Nowhere did I state that I accepted the linked statements as fact; what I said was that they were useful in the context of the question, and they were. If you believe otherwise, you are very stupid, and should not be permitted near a keyboard without supervision.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      You are clearly not familiar with Bruce Schneier.

    28. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Tor is backdoored. You can see that from the ease with which the Feds locate sites and users.

      Backdoored, probably not, vulnerable, probably yes.
      What Tor attempts to do is hard. First of all, the network has to be secure even though a significant part of it is controlled by governments. Second, the Tor browser is an attempt to take a very leaky browser (all modern browsers are) and turn it into something secure without making navigation too troublesome. Third, even a secure network and a secure browser won't protect you against social engineering and old fashioned detective work.

    29. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you but there's still something bad wrong with TOR. Whether Jacob was hatcheted or not.

    30. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      Jacob needs to fix it. It's your duty Jacob, no matter what shit they try to throw at you.

      Do I detect a hint of narcissism coming from the AC? Are you trying to say that Jacob is the only person in the whole world who can fix Tor, no matter how many other skilled developers work on Tor and no matter how much they don't want to work with him?

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    31. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "I personally know some of the people that came forward, they had no agenda other than stopping a serial sexual predator / harrasser."

      That sure as fuck isn't what I'm reading STRAIGHT FROM A SUPPOSED VICTIM'S MOUTH.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    32. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tor is secure. Where people have been located, it was due to bugs on the bundled browser and not following best security practices like disabling Javascript and not using a maximized browser window (to thwart canvas based fingerprinting). But the underlying network itself is secure.

      That or share too much information about yourself or your other online activity or download malicious content. It doesn't even have to be malware as such but say an MP3 where your media player tries to download cover art, any kind of functionality that could lead to non-TOR traffic. Or socially engineer you to visit a popular YouTube video in your ordinary browser using a special URL. It could be they have a exploit on core TOR, but in that case I'm guessing it's in the NSA vaults along with the AES backdoor.

      People don't understand the power of profiling and combinatorics. For example say you look at my posting history, I've probably casually mentioned my age a few times - let's say you have my birthday pinned down to a month even though I never said when it was. My sex too in some context, I presume. And I've at one point mentioned my country, my hometown (>150k) and that I used to live in the capital (>600k). If you have a post saying "I'm moving back home soon" that's enough to pinpoint me, if you have access to the right registry.

      How does that work? Well you have ~145k registered domestic moves. Only ~49k are between different parts of the country. In total there's about ~9k for my hometown, those are all public statistics. So about (49/145)*9k = 3k long-distance moves to my town, for argument we'll assume all are from the capital. If average lifespan is 80, my month is roughly 1/(80*12) of the total population so ~3 moves of people my age and ~1.5 if you add sex. If soon means the coming month you're down to 1.5/12 = ~1/8. Even with some non-uniformity and whatnot it'll probably be one, at most two.

      People don't stop to think about these things, particularly when it appears to happen in "private", but services get compromised. Or are honeypots to begin with. And even if you use PGP or some other secure channel, what used to be a buddy today can be compromised tomorrow. And this gets more and more important as we leave more and more "real world" electronic traces, like that concert you were at - were you also tagged on Facebook? In the past it would have been almost useless information, today a few such tidbits of information can easily lead to just having a handful of suspects to investigate closer.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    33. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I didn't go into specifics because I wasn't there"

      Then you shouldn't have opened your fucking mouth in the first fucking place.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    34. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That's why I recommend using the Tails live CD. No danger of running anything else or automatic updates etc. Everything goes through Tor, and there is no permanent storage so no trace left after you power off. You still have to be careful, but it eliminates most of the problems associated with running Tor on a normal OS.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better, simply do not get naked and into a bathtub with someone as that can be misinterpreted as sexual interest. Going to the bathroom with Appelbaum was bad enough, or to a bedroom. They could have had a coffee at a nearby shop.

    36. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Lisias · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand about opinions like yours is, if it really is some kind of government setup, why did they pick Jacob Abelbaum? He is not even close to a crucial part of Tor. There are lots of more important developers that they could have targeted instead. Besides the scandal of it, losing his developer abilities barely effects Tor at all.

      Because he was the weakest link.

      Abelbaum was not the target, he was the means. Someone (or all) the board of directors was/were the target(s).

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    37. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      If every guy stopped trying at the first "no" there would be very little if any procreation at all. No girl ever says "maybe, if you try harder".

      If a woman says "yes" after any number of "no", the "no" doesn't count any longer. No is only good until the first "yes". Pressure or not.

      Many women want persistent men, and use "no" as a test of fealty.

      I hate the PC crowd and the cries of Misogyny whenever the thousands of years, multicultural rituals of mutual courtship are dismissed because of some SJW view of how things ought to be.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    38. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The time i spent with a US sec clearance only made me despise most of the federal government.

    39. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Jesus, were you raised by animals? Actually, I take that back, animals would do a much better job of it.

    40. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are the other two persons who were removed from their position at TOR?

    41. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do any of these people have purple hair?

    42. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice I am not posting anonymously.

      Yes you are. Your name is not "nonsequitor". You are as anonymous as I am.

      Want to keep your seat on your high horse? Post your full name, phone number, and address. Go ahead and de-anonymize yourself if you think that is important.

    43. Re: Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If every guy stopped trying at the first "no" there would be very little if any procreation at all

      Nah, what guys usually do is just ask another woman. Procreation is kept up more by the shotgun approach of asking many women than being persistent with a few (or one) woman. This is also why throughout history men are more prone to have multiple mistresses/wives/concubines, visit brothels, etc.

      As noted by comedian Chris Rock, guys understand that there are plenty of fish out there.

      You say you despite SJWs, but the idea that women like persistent guys is something SJWs propagated, as they see normal male behavior (that is, the shotgun approach) as "toxic masculinity"

      Now of course if you combine both the shotgun approach and the approach of not taking "no" for an answer, you get the best results. I call it the Genghis Khan propagation strategy (rape and pillage half the world, your DNA is now found in 8% of Asian men!).

    44. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I applied for a job at BT many years ago and ISTR there was a level of (government) security clearance involved there. It was mentioned at the interview but as I didn't get the job, I have no idea if it applied to that position or not. I would also imagine the staff who do the most menial jobs at a government institution still require security clearance; you don't want to employ the sort of person who makes notes while they're unblocking the toilets, do you? ;)

    45. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      But they replaced the board with a bunch of people that are well known proponents of privacy and not exactly friends of the federal government...

    46. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You are clearly not familiar with Bruce Schneier.

      Bruce Schneier is the Chuck Norris of encryption. Where others solve sudokus during breakfast, Bruce solves one-time pad messages! And that's before he had his coffee!

    47. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your link about the same person that nonsequitor was talking about? Nope. So, shut up with your stupid second-hand observations.

    48. Re:Hatchet jobs aside by Lisias · · Score: 1

      (better late than never)

      But they replaced the board with a bunch of people that are well known proponents of privacy and not exactly friends of the federal government...

      *IF* the cons are the government, cleaning up the board of directors with people that did not already had said "no" to their proposals is better than sticking up with people that did. At least there's a hope for change - and, believe me, this stunt was cheap for the government, they can repeat this ad nauseaum.

      But perhaps the feds are not guilty this time, who knows?

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  4. Rule of thumb: not so much. by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This kind of accusation is usually BS to frame politically dangerous people.

    Um. No. Seriously and respectfully ask some of your female friends what kind of misconduct they've experienced in the workplace. You may be amazed.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if any of the cretins above have female friends!

    2. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Their attitudes rather explain why. They clearly hate women, and it stems from their own fear of women.

      For chrissakes all but one of my bosses has been a woman. I have worked with women as my supervisors and women working under me, and women in equal positions. I've never had one accuse me of anything untoward, nor have I ever seen any of them behave in a dishonorable fashion towards me.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Rule of thumb: not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This kind of accusation is usually BS to frame politically dangerous people.

      Um. No. Seriously and respectfully ask some of your female friends what kind of misconduct they've experienced in the workplace. You may be amazed.

      The trouble is both of you can be right. There is lots of harassment against women in the work place, most of which doesn't end in an accusation and also most of the accusations against top level crypto involved free software developers will be politically motivated. There are actors, such as various intelligence services, who might want to discredit him who are fully capable of arranging a large group of people around him to make false accusations. It's very hard to tell. That's why we have to have actual investigations.

      In this case there has been an actual investigation. Unless Appelbaum appeals we should assume that the results are true. In any case, we don't follow up by trying to cause him more trouble, because we know that there is a small chance this might be a trick, however we do tell our daughters and friends to be careful with him. We should keep auditing tor for unexpected and subtle vulnerabilities.

    4. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you HAVE experienced a man behaving poorly, correct? Is there any reason a woman couldn't behave poorly in a roughly equal manner? It all depends on how you treat the people that you meet. As well as how they treated YOU.

    5. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The only troublesome events I've had with other coworkers was in some of the management positions I held where I had to take some disciplinary action for tardiness or poor work. Once I had to terminate someone, and I have to say that of all the hard things I've had to do in my professional and personal life, that was just about the hardest thing I ever had to do. The individual was a very nice person, someone who I personally liked a lot, but for a lot of reasons, some of them not their fault, they just couldn't do the job, and after multiple chances, the management team decided they had to go, and I, being direct supervisor, was the lucky recipient of that task.

      Now I have seen some pretty deplorable behavior between other workers. I've seen bullying, both subtle and not so subtle, and have seen two coworkers enter a sexual relationship. None of these were my supervisors, and I wasn't their's, so it did not affect me personally, but I'd say that good people and shitty people are pretty much evenly divided between men and women.

      The worst boss I ever had was a man, however. A petulant, ill tempered asshole who took out his shitty marriage on his employees, to the point where, after a ten minute session of the most vile berating because she had forgot to make a new pot of coffee, she just ran out the door in tears. She came back an hour later, and actually fucking apologized to that creep, mainly because she was a single mother with a young child, and couldn't afford to be unemployed. That certainly taught me a good deal about situations of relative power and impotence, and while not sexual abuse, was a kind of hostility and abuse where I did see people stick with the job, simply because they needed to pay the bills.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Rule of thumb: not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argument from imagination, a SJW standard.

    7. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men used to marry female children. Now such men are raped by black homosexuals due to women's democracy. Woohooo you are dominated by female bosses etc; congrats.

    8. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      give your brain cell back to the rock, its wasted on you

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    9. Re:Rule of thumb: not so much. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      This kind of accusation is usually BS to frame politically dangerous people.

      Um. No. Seriously and respectfully ask some of your female friends what kind of misconduct they've experienced in the workplace. You may be amazed.

      No seriously check up on the scams that this has been used to pull. YOU!! May be amazed.

    10. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod above comment up. I was shocked to discover one of my female coworkers was followed by someone with a camera as she was jogging - just some weird perv shamelessly taking photos of her as she ran.

    11. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Next thing that camera would've taken is a photo series of an asshole getting dilated, from an interesting first person point-of-view angle.

      Well, of course depending on where I put my finger as I shove it up his rear, that is.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      An interesting, but not a novel way of stooping to the level of undesirables.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm not imaginative. Only violent.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Rule of thumb: not so much. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Seriously and respectfully ask some of your female friends what kind of misconduct they've experienced in the workplace."

      EXPERIENCED? THEY'RE STARTING THE MISCONDUCT HALF THE FUCKING TIME!

      Try a job in the porno industry. The women are 100x worse than men when it comes to harassment.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Yes. They aren't men.

    16. Re:Rule of thumb: not so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

  5. Let's be certain first,.. by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ever since gamergate my concepts of fair reporting, harassment, he said she said have been seriously adjusted. There was totally horrible people, saying horrible things, but it seems only one side of the story is ever reported, making people more and more jaded and cynical of the media.

    Stories such as Linus specifically having to avoid spending any time with females one on one as he's been "targeted for take down". Situations of outright false claims against people, proven clear and still people write incorrect articles about them, deliberately.

    This story may well be correct, however in the very very least, I will no longer blindly leap into "condemn them, silence them!!" mode as is intended. I am particularly skeptical when a "harassment policy" is put in place too, as those have been going a general indicator of people "meddling in the name of righteousness " regardless if there was even a problem in the first place.

    Be wise and if you read the article at least try to find multiple sources and preferably the other side of the story. At least GG taught me take stuff on the Internet with again of salt finally.

    P.s off topic , I used to see posts whining about how awful Slashdot mobile is, I thought the people were exaggerating. They aren't, it's a warcrime.

    1. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who the hell would even want a one-on-one discussion with Linus?

    2. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Informative

      Regardless of your stance on the situation itself, my point was that it revealed to me just how the media work, they all seem to copy each other,run with the groupthink and any analysis,questioning, critical opinions, in almost ANY capacity are discarded as "hate speech" and the person branded as not with listening to.

      I don't particular want to reference it either, specifically due to dismissive replies like yours. however it did appear to be the awakening bell for a large quantity of quantity of people to at least try and investigate things and not blindly trust everything written.

    3. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It might win the presidency. (Not gg in particular, just that particular attitude)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a two-way street. Sure, "targets" like Linus have to be careful, but it's becoming even more difficult for actual victims of male semi-celebrities because they are called liars and sluts on top of having gone thru an unpleasant experience.

      Have you seen how people treated the women who made those complaints against Assange?

      For some reason when it's tech-related celebrities there's a cloud of immunity and endless waves of defenders that have no more information, just strong opinions. We laugh at people who still defend Bill Cosby, but when it comes to Assange, Applebaum or even Gore it's a different story. It's smear campaigns, NSA operations, corporate greed, etc. It's never a fucking immature asshole who crosses the line.

      It's as if in tech there's saints and serial killers, nothing in between. Girl goes to a bar with a guy and guy puts his hands down her pants? He's just "hitting on her", she shouldn't have gone there if she didn't want it. Girl parties with guy, goes home with him, has safe sex with him, then wakes up from a booze blackout to find him fucking her without a condom? She asked for it, she shouldn't have been in his bed if she didn't want to give him a blank check to fuck her bareback while she's passed out. And/or she's a NSA shill.

      I've always being very skeptical of the whole "rape culture" thing, the switch rape and all that. Always figured it was people aspiring to some kind of heroic role in a society that has no real issues left. But the more I see the posts here about Applebaum and Assange, the more I'm questioning my own assumptions about how civilized we are.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by tsotha · · Score: 1

      People on both sides of gamergate say the same thing but mean something totally different.

    6. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the moderation of this post, this guy has triggered the groupthink clique. With us or against us, same old mo

    7. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by lucm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you for supporting my point. You start by claiming that those women didn't "suffer" or got extradited (which would have never been an issue for Assange if he had faced the charges in Sweden instead of running away) then you ramble on about honeytraps and Afghanistan. It always come back to the smear campaign scenario.

      Here's a citation.

      The woman, whose name has not been disclosed, said that when the allegations became public she received threats and found it impossible to work.

      She said that she was judged in a "gigantic court of public opinion with anonymous judges and witnesses who guessed wildly".

      http://news.sky.com/story/juli...

      There's also a good article on Slate about this. And many others. All shills and honeypots of course.

      You're one of those anonymous judges and witnesses, thank you for your contribution to making the world a better place.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    8. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Linus specifically having to avoid spending any time with females one on one as he's been "targeted for take down"

      Where the hell did that come from?

    9. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Cells are full of people just like Applebaum is supposed to be. It's happened a lot before. Maybe it's just happening again.
      As for Assange vs Spooks, that was happening in little ways long before he went to Sweden so the chances of that strange case being mixed up with that are very high.

    10. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is crap. You should be ashamed of yourself and it wont be accepted

    11. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Here's a citation.

      The woman, whose name has not been disclosed, said that when the allegations became public she received threats and found it impossible to work.

      She said that she was judged in a "gigantic court of public opinion with anonymous judges and witnesses who guessed wildly".

      Just how did anyone know who this "Un Disclosed" woman was to threaten her ?

      Have a little fucking skepticism. Your brain is more than just dead weight to keep your head in place.

    12. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com.au/sear...

      I actually heard it on here.

    13. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I am particularly skeptical when a "harassment policy" is put in place too

      Sadly once an org gets big enough you have to deal with the fact that some people will steal, some people will bully and others will grope. The policies to deal with all are mostly just common sense and referral to law enforcement unless you have HR people that like to micromanage or empire build.

    14. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Said group has disbanded but they spread out to other "Women in Tech" groups to try the same type of things.

      Only nobody every tried those things and the only source that said it was going to happen is a bit of a biased ranting fruitcake called Eric Raymond - the "fisking" guy, who said he heard about it in an online chat somewhere.

      Thus nothing at all to do with Linus who never had to fear for anything like that.

    15. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Ever since gamergate my concepts of fair reporting, harassment, he said she said have been seriously adjusted.

      Well it would appear you haven't learned a darned thing. You see you went straight from that to:

      Stories such as Linus specifically having to avoid spending any time with females one on one as he's been "targeted for take down".

      That was nothing more than ESR ranting on his blog. No facts, no evidence, nothing.

      Be wise and if you read the article at least try to find multiple sources and preferably the other side of the story.

      There are not always two sides to every story. See, e.g. evolution vs creation, flat earth vs not, human Egyptian pyramid builders vs aliens.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've recently had reason to revise my opinion of the media in a similar way. I came across a BBC article describing an underhanded, misogynist resistance to the new Ghostbusters movie, citing as evidence a post on Reddit. I later came across an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, investigating in more detail, finding that this particular post was a false flag attack - a deliberate attempt by a pro-Ghostbusters enthusiast to misrepresent detractors of the film. I returned to the BBC article, to compare, and found that this piece of evidence had been silently excised.

      The fact that the BBC had failed to investigate, and identify the false flag attack, is merely laziness. The fact that, upon it being identified, they didn't revise any of their conclusions, but simply removed it from the article, looks rather partisan. And the fact that they didn't add a notation at the end of the article, saying how and why it had been changed ... that's a serious violation of journalistic ethics. And if you can't trust the BBC to act ethically, who can you trust?

      (For reference, archived versions of the article before and after it was changed.)

    17. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up.

      You clearly have no idea how corrupted Sweden is beneath the polished surface. Our government has already not only turned a blind eye, but actively assisted in having two innocent men renditioned so the CIA and their goons could torture them. If you for a second think they'd stop because Assange is Australian and not Egyptian, you're not only racist, but seriously naive to boot.

      Combine this with "sex without condom = rape" and all the other contorted femi-nazi horse shit involved in this case, and you have to be blind to not get that something is afoot.

      Note that I'm not necessarily saying these women were involved in the scheme, but they definitely got used, and I definitely think Assange has reason to worry.

    18. Re: Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no journalistic integrity: there are editorial policies and there are advertisers. Going up against political correctness means causing an outcry by very vocal and very influential interest groups which will call for a boycott of your advertisers if they do not pull their ads. Your editor knows this. Your shareholders know this. So, you will not write anything against editorial policy. Is that clear enough?

    19. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The box near the door, that's where you may deposit your geek-card on your way out.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is "gamergate"? One of the "scandals" that got "-gate" tacked on to prove that any "scandal" that got "-gate" tacked on isn't really a scandal but some pig that has to be dressed up and lipstick'd to be even noticed?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Have you seen how people treated the women who made those complaints against Assange?

      I have. At least one of those women was beyond suspicious, both of them withdrew their support for charges, Assange asked if he needed to stay for questioning, was told no, left, and was told to come back, etc etc. Even if Assange is a total shitheel, that whole thing stunk to high heaven. It would be shocking if it didn't make people suspicious.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Combine this with "sex without condom = rape" and all the other contorted femi-nazi horse shit involved in this case, and you have to be blind to not get that something is afoot.

      If you agree to purchase a car on the basis that the transmission works, and it doesn't then you've been defrauded. If you agree to have sex with someone on the basis that they wear a condom, and they don't, then you have been raped. The only question at hand when that topic arises is whether she consented to the act in the moment. If a woman can withdraw consent at any time, it stands to reason that she can also grant it. Regretting granting consent after the fact doesn't make it a nonconsensual act on the part of the other party; it makes it a regretful act on the part of the consenting party.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a he said she said scenario. The "facts" generally come down to whomever the beholder connects with more. Obviously you connect with the not-Assanges.

      It's not "fair", it's not "right", it's not "justice", but that's the world we live in. Too bad we can't just all watch the legitimate videos of the whole thing happening, eh?

    24. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Stories such as Linus specifically having to avoid spending any time with females one on one as he's been "targeted for take down". Situations of outright false claims against people, proven clear and still people write incorrect articles about them, deliberately.

      You should take your own advice. The claims about Linus were one blog post by someone who has been largely discredited. Yet you seem to consider it of equal journalistic quality and value as things written by actual journalists in respected outlets.

      Ever since gamergate my concepts of fair reporting, harassment, he said she said have been seriously adjusted.

      Yes, you now seem to take the word of people on social media as being as valid as that of multiple respected journalists and assume that when they disagree there must be some conspiracy by the journalists to hide the truth.

      I will no longer blindly leap into "condemn them, silence them!!" mode as is intended.

      People, especially journalists reporting on the events, have been asking for comment from Appelbaum since the very beginning. Quite the opposite of silencing him, his silence has been frustrating them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since gamergate my concepts of fair reporting, harassment, he said she said have been seriously adjusted.

      Same.

      After you've lived through the media egregious, shameless promoting absolute, certifiably false and absurd lies against so many people, it's hard to trust those sources anymore. Gamergate was an internet scandal, and what made it unique was that all the information, all the events, were all right there, one click away. Everyone saw the same events, in the same way. But the media took an extremist interpretation of everything, an eventually we all found out that it was for expressly political purposes.

      The Internet has changed in the wake of Gamergate. The trust is gone in large part. After you've seen the medium effectively turn on video games, after you've seen the Internet -- of all fucking things -- turn around and knife video games in the back, it's hard to know what to believe anymore.

    26. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you seem to consider it of equal journalistic quality and value as things written by actual journalists in respected outlets.

      Hey, if feminists can reject the rulings of actual judges in actual courts when they don't get the verdict they want in cases related to rape/sexual assault/etc, it's only natural and logical that people will start distrusting people in less rigorous and respected fields in society, such as journalists.

      Meanwhile, feminists have also taught us that it's ok to trust people like Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn, who aren't even journalists (one's a critic and other is a game developer)

      The idea is that it's no longer about the merit or value of the source, but whether the message conforms with your agenda. Supports my views? Listen and believe! Against my views? Attack and destroy!

      This is the bed you (feminists) have laid for yourselves.

      Yes, you now seem to take the word of people on social media as being as valid as that of multiple respected journalists and assume that when they disagree there must be some conspiracy by the journalists to hide the truth.

      Hey, feminism teaches us that there's a huge conspiracy in society - patriarchy - that is so huge that people would even UNCONSCIOUSLY partake in it to hide the truth, hurt woman, and do much worse. So again feminists have set the tone of the conversation. It's no longer about facts and evidence, but feelings and pushing your side of the agenda.

      Case in point look at how great Trump is doing by pressing the right emotional buttons in people.

      People, especially journalists reporting on the events, have been asking for comment from Appelbaum since the very beginning.

      I do believe Applebaum already did make a statement once near the beginning of the drama.

      Quite the opposite of silencing him, his silence has been frustrating them.

      What is there to be frustrated about? A journalist's job is to report the news. If somebody refuses to comment, then the journalist can report "he has refused to comment", and let the readers/viewers come to their own conclusions.

      That you say journalists are feeling frustrated sounds to me that these journalists from so called respected outlets aren't acting professionally. Sounds like they don't just want to report the news, but create drama themselves as that sells more views/clicks

    27. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So says the anonymous coward.

    28. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, while I agree with you to a large extent, "rape" is a something traumatic and quite specific. It infers use of force, violence, coercion, intimidation, drugging or something like that which makes the victim completely powerless.

      Calling "having sex without a condom", or "I had sex with someone yesterday, but now I'm having second thoughts" rape is not only a very simple and obvious way to demonize someone you want to smear. It's also an insult to every single victim of a real rape.

    29. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was a girl writing about a shitty time she had at a convention and a lot of boys that never grew up getting offended by her daring to write that. So nothing of note but a lot was spilled over a small corner of the net and swilled over onto this site - stuff about "Mens Rights Activism" and how the right to insult teenage girls is written into the constitution or something.

    30. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by lucm · · Score: 1

      Read this excellent account from Andrew O'Hagan about the time he spent with Assange while he was asked to write a book about him.

      http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/a...

      This should give you a better idea of the "real" Assange. Interesting quote:

      I asked him if he had a working title yet and he said, to laughter, ‘Yes. “Ban This Book: From Swedish Whores to Pentagon Bores”.’

      Assange spent 2 weeks in Sweden. One of his accusers is a woman engaged in local politics who had her career ruined in the aftermath. And yet people still call that a smear campaign organized by the US intelligence service?

      Why don't you use that skepticism to question things that don't make sense for once.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    31. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by lucm · · Score: 2

      "Sex without a condom" and "sex without a condom while you are asleep after having sex with a condom the previous night" are two different things. I don't know how you figure that she gave her consent while she was passed out but if that's not rape in your book you can be sure I'll never let you date my daughter.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    32. Re: Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be very, very careful about expressing those views in real life. In fact, I strongly advise you to change your mind and your convinctions. It takes so very little to destroy a life and you could find out the hard way that one word too many in public may lead to a lifetime of misery. Most of us have become accustomed to silence our own opinions when we undestand they may run contrary to the "common feeling" and to what "the majority thinks". There are such things as thoughtcrimes and being found guilty of thoughtcrime in the eyes of the public opinion may well alter your life forever. Be careful. Change your mind. Conform.

    33. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Everyone has the unalienable right to feel insulted.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Have you seen how people treated the women who made those complaints against Assange?

      Yeah, you are right, the Assange case is mostly a sexual harassment one. That whole thing about this small WikiLeaks website and all the weird things occuring around this case is coincidental.

    35. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The woman, whose name has not been disclosed, said that when the allegations became public she received threats and found it impossible to work. She said that she was judged in a "gigantic court of public opinion with anonymous judges and witnesses who guessed wildly".

      This tends to happen in almost every case regardless if it goes to trial because the standard there is "beyond a reasonable doubt". There's a wide berth between being convicted of false accusations and guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt where people speculate in the probable and improbable. And even when people do get convicted they speculate in everything from misjudgments to false testimony to conspiracies. As long as we don't have absolute knowledge and we never have and never will some people will take the accuser's side and some will take the accused's side and they'll be very angry with each other.

      I'd be absolutely furious if someone accused me of a rape I didn't commit and nobody believed me. I'd be absolutely furious if I'd been raped and nobody believed me. Like it or not there will be a battle in the public opinion and there will be a battle in the private sphere as to who your friends and family and coworkers believe. And that's all it'll be, a battle of credibility because most of the time there is no evidence of any substance. And sadly enough most of the actual criminals knows who has the upper hand in advance, they'll rape victims that are so drunk their testimony will be a mess. Or that "no smoke without fire" will win this custody case. Short of saying all sex is rape without signed consent forms I don't see a solution though.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, I have zero interest in anyone related to you. I wouldn't even want to be near anyone who feels a compulsive need to use the blackest tar possible and bring trumped up charges as soon as you find someone you don't like.

      Rape is rape, stop insulting rape victims around the world by trying to misuse the term in order to smear Assange.

      Furthermore, the alleged "victims" apparently didn't feel too "raped", since their original wish was not to report that they had been "raped", but that he should be tested for HIV.

      Another fun fact: Nobody, even former attorneys, called what Assange did rape, until Marianne Ny, a politically connected attorney with known femi-nazi leanings caught wind of the "case". She realized she and our government could use the stupid bitches, who probably where naive enough to have no idea how the whole thing would blow up, and their woes to further her career, and score brownie-points with the US at the same time. BINGO!

      Face it, the mess with Assange, no matter what you think of him, is politically motivated and vastly, vastly overblown. I can't say I like the guy, or condone his behaviour, but the fact remains that he is no rapist. Presumably his action could fit the charge "sexual misbehaviour" or however you care to translate "sexuellt utnyttjande", but it's a completely different, and much lesser charge.

      Alas, we have political courts in this country, and an unhealthy mix in our judicial system between business, politics and judicial power. On paper it looks fine, but in practice it's very much a "who knows who" thing. Just look at the kangaroo court the Pirate bay people faced; the chair of the court, who by a lucky accident just happened to be a member of the board of a copyright lobbyist organisation. And the person who was called to judge whether that disqualified him, just happened to be a "former" member of the same organisation.

      Our judicial system is a joke.

    37. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, while I agree with you to a large extent, "rape" is a something traumatic

      No. The standard is not trauma. The standard is [typically] nonconsensual penetration.

      and quite specific.

      Yes. Rape is a legal charge, and the definition of a legal violation is quite specific. And penetration without permission is rape, and penetration without a condom when permission has only been given for penetration with a condom is penetration without permission, which is rape.

      If you don't understand this, you are probably a rapist, or at best, you are a would-be rapist.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is "gamergate"? One of the "scandals" that got "-gate" tacked on to prove that any "scandal" that got "-gate" tacked on isn't really a scandal but some pig that has to be dressed up and lipstick'd to be even noticed?

      About twelve different video game websites (Polygon, Kotaku, etc) responded to accusations of cliquishness by all publishing some variant of the same article titled "Gamers Are Dead" on the same day. They thought it was a good idea to confirm the accusations while insulting their entire audience.

      Big sites like Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, and Wikipedia and littler sites like Metafilter, Fark, and Hacker News teamed up to suppress all news of the scandal so the issue expanded from corrupt journalists to corrupt moderators and the site owners who support them. And the censorship became a left/right political issue because the same sites that banned discussion of Gamergate went on to censor reasonable opposition to transgenderism, Black Lives Matter, Islamic extremism, and open borders policies during wartime while leaving up the unreasonable bigots so it would look like the bigots were the only opposition. And it leaked that Twitter and Facebook are intentionally suppressing the spread of conservative news sources and hashtags, and they have software designed to make it seem like an accident that a conservative news link will randomly not show up for some users. And the EFF backs all of this with its silence.

      Back to Gamergate, it turned out that Microsoft was backing most of the indie devs who were favored by the journalist clique, and Microsoft had previously expressed an interest in hiring "cultural change" experts in response to complaints about asshole Halo players, and the experts Microsoft hired turned out to be literal Communist Party propagandists who are still fighting the Cold War to destroy America from within, and they are linked to HSBC and money laundering, and there are strong signs of corruption around Indiecade and IGF .

      There is definite deep state shit going down on top of the scandal.

    39. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Look, I'm losing the argument, quickly throw in the insults!" What a loser you are.

      And you're quite mistaken about what an actual rape is. First of all, what constitutes a "rape" may vary with the jurisdiction. This happened in Sweden. We have other charges for sexually related actions that are still illegal but not a flat out rape. Not the US, where apparently everything the puritans don't like is "rape". The use of the charge "rape" is purely politically motivated, because it sounds so much worse.

      Secondly, rape a very, very vile act, which unfortunately lends it well to manipulative people with agendas of the own to use it as a smear word to manipulate the unwary. Seriously, two teenagers having a go at it can get a conviction for "rape".... What kind of mind do you have, when you don't understand that the "rape" charge has been abused to the point where it's about to lose any meaning? However, I find your definition - "penetration without permission" quite enlightening. It's not the people involved who are supposed to give permission or not - it's "society". And if "society" think it's all right to brand a couple of teenagers as "rapists" and "sex criminals" for life, for having very consensual sex, that's fine with you - after all, there was no "permission", they were both under age.

      Fuck off you puritan retard. Learn about the rest of the world, and die in horror when you realize you're nothing but the rejects of the rest of the world. I'm done with you.

    40. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Someone has already pointed that out to me and I've accepted it could be total rubbish. This doesn't particularly negate the rest of my post at all. (Also, I didn't accuse the guy who pointed it out to be anything either to boot)

      My point still stands entirely.

    41. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Stories such as Linus specifically having to avoid spending any time with females

      Linus has never made any such claims. That claim seems to have made up out of whole cloth, either by Eric Raymond or by someone whom Eric Raymond "trusts their word" enough to stand behind the verifiably ludicrous claim.

      Besides, if they really wanted to teach feminazis not to bother open source or freeware developers, they'd introduce those women to Richard M. Stallman.

    42. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by lucm · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even want to be near anyone who feels a compulsive need to use the blackest tar possible and bring trumped up charges as soon as you find someone you don't like.

      Sorry but I stopped reading after that sentence. The fact that you accuse me of "bringing trumped up charges" clearly shows what a one-trick pony you are. It's always smear campaigns with you, isn't it? Me, or the CIA, or big corporations... all the same.

      For the record I don't make shit up about people I don't like. If anything I often defend people I severely dislike when I think they're victims of a demented pitch fork mob (like that woman from Theranos or Donald Trump).

      As for Assange he's just a total asshole and I don't have to make this up; running away from Sweden gave him the comfortable narrative of being "persecuted" and threatened with extradition. Only a guilty coward woud run away in this context. And this completely jives wih his double standard when it comes to privacy; everyone's secrets can be exposed, except for his or Wikileaks. In my opinion the fact that Wikileaks has achieved what they did so far is *in spite* of Assange, not because of him.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    43. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you stopped reading, that way we can all easily tell who and what kind of person you are. "If the story doesn't fit your narrative, stop reading." Good way to put yourself on display as quite the idiot.

    44. Re:Let's be certain first,.. by lucm · · Score: 1

      You start with this:

      "Look, I'm losing the argument, quickly throw in the insults!" What a loser you are.

      and you end with this:

      Fuck off you puritan retard. Learn about the rest of the world, and die in horror when you realize you're nothing but the rejects of the rest of the world. I'm done with you.

      And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously?

      The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and The Bridge showed a dark side of Sweden, but your posts are doing their part too.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  6. Seems to be an ongoing issue with alpha males by no-body · · Score: 0

    that once a certain position in the hierarchy of a group is achieved, a polygynous mating pattern re-appears.

    Could be useful to improve survival of a species. With humans - well, brain size and adequate usage of this capacity still lags severely behind.

  7. They don't want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worse, they already purged anyone who might've disagreed. They also fail to address this point: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sop8ps

    Oh, and they don't want an actual court to investigate. They did hire an investigator who... talked to people. No indication of whether they did things like gather corroborating evidence and it's not really clear how much of that a PI can do without any ability to issue subpoenas. And the whole investigation is private.

    I don't know which story is true here, but I do know which side of this is operating in an open and transparent manner and which side is not.

    1. Re:They don't want one by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They don't want a court involved for the same reason no corporate or private entity wants a court involved; because the court will find the organization was in the wrong, and will find against it. The whole point of having sexual harassment policies and making them apply to everyone from the CEO to the guy that vacuums the carpet is corporate liability for sexual harassment or assault lies solely on the perpetrator. Even where a board or management has been proven to have insufficiently protected employees from sexual or other kinds of abuse, a strong response is seen as a way of assuring the corporate culture is appropriately modified.

      Where I work, and I am in a senior management position now, sexual harassment, bullying and other anti-social actions are all in the company policies, and those policies constitute part of an employee's employment contract. While serious assaults would be referred to police, actions that while perhaps not criminal in nature, but still in violation of the policies surrounding the most egregious behaviors will inevitably lead to termination (with severance where we deem it inappropriate to have the individual on premises one second longer).

      It sounds to me like Tor hat a right shitty organizational culture which had far too much familiarity between employees, and while I'll wager that they did have the proper policies, non-enforcement can lead to those being little more than a booklet that collects dust in everyone's office. Well, that's bad on them, but at the end of the day, in the world we live in now, at any point one party in a sexual or erotic encounter can terminate that encounter immediately, and if the other party does not comply, then the line is crossed. But really, there should be a zero tolerance for shenanigans. Managers should not be having any kind of sexual encounters with subordinates, even if it is consensual. It's disruptive, bad for general moral, and opens up the organization to significant liabilities. Frankly, if I or one of the other managers had a sexual encounter with a subordinate, and it gets found out, I'd say we'd be out the door in a pretty big hurry.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:They don't want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the women who don't want one... and there's the woman who said they made her whole scenario up and never even talked to her.

      So while I don't doubt that Tor is acting in CYA mode due to lawyers, I won't make any assumptions about who is or is not telling the truth except to the extent revealed by evidence. And so far the evidence against him looks fishy, while the evidence the other way is unverifiable. Given the presumption of innocence, despite some people trying to kill that in some cases, that puts me weakly on his side barring more verifiable evidence against him, though I reserve the right to revise that in the face of evidence to the contrary (e.g. a video of him doing something bad).

    3. Re: They don't want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. The question is who is out of Tor? Is there a party that benefits from those individuals no longer being employed there (to a greater degree than the harassed)?

    4. Re:They don't want one by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There have been at least a few people willing to go on record as witnesses to his ill behavior.

      http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re: They don't want one by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      How about not having their asses sued off? Strong responses to sexual and other forms of misconduct are often not done out of some sense of decency, but because without a strong response, the victims' next route is to sue the organization, which can be very costly.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:They don't want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse, they already purged anyone who might've disagreed.

      Enough, Jakey, enough.

    7. Re:They don't want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, best example ever of "I don't like what you're saying but I can't refute it, -1 to you" ever!! :D

  8. Outside the organization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jacob Appelbaum engaged in "sexually aggressive behavior" with people inside and outside of its organization.

    Inside the organization is inappropriate and essentially constitutes sexual harassment, a definite no no. But outside the organization he's just a dude trying to get laid. Did he commit sexual assault? If not last I checked it is not a crime to use bad, rather forward pick up lines such as wanna get laid?

    1. Re:Outside the organization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness TOR has a lot of connects to other projects such as tails.

    2. Re:Outside the organization? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It may not be a crime to be bad, but in may still be an actionable offense by one's employer. Employers, particularly where employment contracts are in place, do not have to sit and wait for the police to charge someone, or wait until they're convicted, or even ignore violations of policy because they don't rise to the level of criminal actions, to sack someone.

      Whether it's someone sticking his hands down a woman's pants or even just common theft are almost always actions that can lead to immediate termination.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Outside the organization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Whether it's someone sticking his hands down a woman's pants or even just common theft are almost always actions that can lead to immediate termination.

      Oh yes -- the peer police, judge, jury, and executioner. Social control for everybody, all nutters' favourite.

    4. Re:Outside the organization? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Oh yes -- the peer police, judge, jury, and executioner. Social control for everybody, all nutters' favourite.

      Some people can't control themselves, which is why we have these rules and laws. It's unfortunate, but it's true, and no amount of wishing it away will stop it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. The actual abuse exist, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It isn't a coincidence that these alleged thingamajics surface right at the crux of entire board being offed.
    While rest of you are having a social hard-on for and against the whole abuse scenario as per to their plan,
    do we yet have answers to the actually meaningful questions?
    I mean, The entire board of directors are being replaced. that's not a small thing.

    what else?

    1. Re:The actual abuse exist, but ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think we can take their resignation at face value. There was serious abuse in their organization by its most public member and they failed to stop it. The people taking over aren't government stooges, they are well respected and highly competent people like Bruce Schneier.

      They did the right thing. Fresh start, get some good people in, free up some of the old board members to work on the technical side.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:The actual abuse exist, but ... by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      Use your brain for a second, look at the new board. Matt Blaze, well-respected cryptographer from academia. Cindy Cohn, director of the EFF. Bruce fucking Schneier, crypo folk hero and no friend of the federal government. They replaced the board for the exact reason they said they did, and then they went out of their way to pick new people that were as unimpeachable as possible.

  10. Cui Bono and To What End? by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is always a reason, though not always obvious. Tor is now shit, because the good people were chased away. Notice that there are no criminal charges anywhere, just allegations and accusations repeated over and over on any media outlet that would print it. Lead developer gone, whole new board being elected, one should be rather suspicious.

    Now for the tin foil hat: A whole lot of money and effort goes into taking over a project like Tor, and as we saw with the Snowden NSA leaks it is a global exploitation at least after the fact. China, the US, the UK, and just about everyone else suddenly has no problem finding people on Tor networks. All of those same groups can claim ignorance when the cat jumps out of the bag.

    Sometimes it's not easy to see who benefits and a clear goal. That is when you need to look around to see why you are being distracted.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice that, when a private citizen needs to just go away and not have power anymore the MO of the US and UK for the last hundred years has been character assassination via sexual deviancy accusations.

    2. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Yes. For this reason I'm much more skeptical of allegations than I would if the same thing happened in a project for some random web framework.

    3. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Notice that there are no criminal charges anywhere,

      So? Most human interaction including dumping people is done without the need for criminal charges. People get permanently banned from things simply for breaking the rules of the organisation, and the police and courts need never get involved.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tor is now shit, because the good people were chased away.

      Complete bollocks. Name some of these "good people" who have left. The project founders and all the major technical contributors are still there, as well as many new ones.

      China, the US, the UK, and just about everyone else suddenly has no problem finding people on Tor networks.

      Also complete bollocks. The only known instances of this happening were via browser vulnerabilities, not problems with Tor itself. And those vulnerabilities could easily have been mitigated if people has set their browsers up properly, disabling Javascript as recommended.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tor is now shit, because the good people were chased away.

      Complete bollocks. Name some of these "good people" who have left. The project founders and all the major technical contributors are still there, as well as many new ones.

      Indeed. Methinks that there is a PsyOps campaign running to make people go to less secure alternatives. If you cannot break it, try to make everybody believe it is broken instead.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      the good people were chased away

      You should look at the new board of directors. It is certainly not "bad people".

    7. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finding people on Tor is easy and it's not a bug. As long as you use web browser it will be always possible to track you. No matter you have javascript enabled or not. The thing that people thought they won't get caught was idealization because nobody tried tracing them before. It was like "we have tor, nobody can track us" - uber nonsense.

    8. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you. There are quite a few ACs making this unfounded claim now, trying to steer people away from the best anonymity network we have.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete bollocks. Name some of these "good people" who have left.

      https://trac.torproject.org/pr...

    10. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      YOU ARE A RAPIST!

      Now queue the media to run front page stories claiming the same "YOU ARE A RAPIST" line.

      If you see no problem with this you are playing with much less than a full deck. Chances are, you do see the problem but it fits your confirmation bias so pretend it does not matter. (You could also just be a troll)

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    11. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Yes, I noticed that too. Probably somebody hired some spin-doctors that are bad-mouthing TOR now, with no actual evidence.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Cui Bono and To What End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are getting id'd on TOR because there are a bunch of pedos and other non-technical people using it now.

  11. WTF? Tor has a board of directors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you trust it ever?

  12. Quote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see any single sentence in the Tor statement that says, as the Verge reported, that they confirmed Appelbaum's misconduct, only that they heard stories from his "victims" and decided to implement a new internal system for reporting misconduct. Am I blind?

    1. Re:Quote? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The blog writer explicitly said they weren't going in to details, but had confirmed to their own satisfaction the veracity of the reports. But there have been a few people willing to go on record to report on what they've seen of Appelbaum's behavior:

      http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  13. Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with a final shake of his fist, and maybe his willy, Jacob Applebaum goes off to join the NSA or Kim Jong-Un. Either way, he'll be in an underground bunker, plotting the downfall of civilization (or Tor at least).

  14. Sick fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude should be do some hard time. That'll get him sorted.

  15. Really lousy article by tgv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is one lousy article. The name of the guy is the only thing revealed, and that is a journalistic no-no IMO: you don't give the full name unless charges have been proven. By a judge. About the nature of his "misconduct", the article is very vague: it's couched in different terms, but it's never made clear what happened, when, where, in what context and who were the victims. It also focuses on the sexual transgressions, and only gives a fleeting reference to people being "humiliated, intimidated, bullied", without explaining why. I understand there is some sort of political battle that largely includes both sides in parallel, and that is not even hinted at. In short, it's bad journalism.

    1. Re:Really lousy article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Have you ever read a news article, like ever in your life? Full names are given all the time. Court proceedings are (generally speaking) a matter of public record.

      You are not a well-informed person and you really have nothing to contribute to a public discussion. A quick look at you posting history shows that you mostly talk out of your ass on subjects you don't understand. Please lurk more.

    2. Re:Really lousy article by nonsequitor · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are a variety of reasons this will never go to court, in part because of Jacob currently residing in Berlin. If you want the full stories, read them here.

      http://jacobappelbaum.net/

    3. Re:Really lousy article by tgv · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's a lot clearer. There's one clear case of sexual abuse, indeed, and while the rest is probably not criminal, it would be more than enough ground for firing him. He seems to be in desperate need of therapy.

    4. Re:Really lousy article by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The situation they are faced with is that their staff are regularly harassed by law enforcement, so going that route is not really an option. The evidence is out there for anyone to evaluate themselves (google his name), and many of the victims have come forward publicly with their real identities.

      They can't just ignore this and they can't really take it to the police. FWIW no defence has been offered in the face of multiple, consistent and credible reports. It is what it is, but if you have a workable way of prosecuting the guy we would love to hear it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Really lousy article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is Tyrell Wellick based of this Jacob character or what?

    6. Re:Really lousy article by tgv · · Score: 1

      That's not the issue: I thought the article was flimsy in the extreme. They could at least have provided a link to background information like the other reply did (https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9448003&cid=52596993). But instead, there is only a forest of links with vaguely worded accusations and denials.

      If someone has to go to the police, it's the sexual abuse victim, not the organization.

    7. Re:Really lousy article by bug1 · · Score: 1

      Not all problems have good solutions, but he is no longer part of the project, the board is being replaced, so those allegedly harassed have got their way.

      You say they are all regularly harassed by law enforcement, and that route is not really an option, so now Appelbaum faces harassment from law enforcement and vigilante's, what hope would he have of defending himself if he was innocent.

      You cant claim the high ground if you take the law into your own hands.

    8. Re:Really lousy article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, sadly enough, none of these are likely to actually be illegal in Germany. They have really terrible rape laws. Very recently they changed the law so that saying "no" is enough for something to qualify as rape, before that you had to prove you actually attempted to fight off the attacker. That said, ALL of them are 100% a reason to fire his ass.

    9. Re:Really lousy article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a slam site full of anonymous accounts and the owners and operators of the site are anonymous and unaccountable. It's anti-evidence: it LOWERS my willingness to believe the accusations.

      At a bare minimum, everyone involved with that site has to stand up and be counted. There is already one "victim" who has disavowed "harrassment". There is a reason why trial by public opinion is .... ahem! "problematic" as far as justice is concerned.

      Were any of this ever to be tried in a court of law...you know those venues where there are actual standards of evidence....that site would be used by the defense to question the empaneling of an impartial jury.

  16. Re:Sorry that you can't get laid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see how all women rejecting you might cause you to believe they're all untrustworthy but it's actually YOUR own fault that you're unattractive. Sorry truth hurts, had to say it though. Can't wait to get downmodded by virgins.

    David DeAngelo? is that you?

  17. "Sexual mistreatment"? by piojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is "sexual mistreatment"? I can't find any info in the article, or the link within that was purported to contain more information.

    Given that this kind of accusation can permanently prevent someone from finding work in their field, I find these articles--lacking details, with no formal legal proceedings--troubling.

    --
    A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    1. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A company doesn't need to wait for formal legal proceedings to terminate someone, particularly if they have an existing set of policies surrounding sexual misconduct.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by nonsequitor · · Score: 1

      http://jacobappelbaum.net/

      The website explains their reasoning for not going to a court of law, which was why the TOR foundation hired a private investigator to confirm their veracity.

    3. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://jacobappelbaum.net/

      The website explains their reasoning for not going to a court of law, which was why the TOR foundation hired a private investigator to confirm their veracity.

      That's funny, I hired a private investigator and found that they were false.

      See my statement there? It holds as much weight as TOR's statement. If they wren't willing to go to a court of law, then it should not be taken seriously.

    4. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is "sexual mistreatment"? I can't find any info in the article, or the link within that was purported to contain more information.

      Given that this kind of accusation can permanently prevent someone from finding work in their field, I find these articles--lacking details, with no formal legal proceedings--troubling.

      Well, one of the examples is detailed here. Basically three Social Justice Warriors saw him speaking to a member of the superior gender and she was upset, ergo he must be a monster for speaking out of turn.

      Except that's not what happened at all, they were speaking on a woman's behalf without permission and completely (and intentionally) misrepresented the facts.

      Reading this highly distorted version of my experience, which is being used as one of the “bulletproof examples” of Jacob’s alleged misbehavior, I can’t help but wonder.

      Wonder about all the stories that have been published the last days.
      Wonder not only about mob justice on twitter, caused by rumors and speculation, but also about the accounts repeated by those who call themselves journalists.
      Wonder about how many other stories have been willingly misinterpreted.
      Wonder about the witnesses in all these stories, who coincidentally always seem to consist of the same set of people.
      Wonder about their motive to speak on my behalf without my consent.

      Oh, and almost every other complaint has the same three SJWs as the "witnesses."

      It's a lynch mob, pure and simple.

    5. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Legal proceedings are not up to a company, but only up to people involved. I worked at a place where 2 employees were caught having intercourse in a spare room. Both were let go for sexual mistreatment despite not being a criminal or legal issue in the slightest. One then sued for wrongful dismissal and lost that case. You don't need to do something criminal to be fired.

    6. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Details here: http://jacobappelbaum.net/

      There were formal proceedings, the Tor Project organization investigated. It's difficult to involve the police because many of its members are regularly harassed by law enforcement and some are wanted in various countries. It's likely that there is a grand jury investigation in the US into Appelbaum himself for involvement with the Snowden leaks, for example. The victims live in different countries too, although there are some in Germany where Appelbaum currently resides.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re: "Sexual mistreatment"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you value your job, your home, your family and your life you will NEVER ask questions like this and you will NEVER EVER express an opinion out of line with what is accepted to be the "common feeling" as dictated by legitimate channels. Heed this advice. Heterodoxy is not a crime yet, but we'll come to it.

    8. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      Tor has the right to terminate their employees pursuant to their contracts. They do not need to go to a court of law. Why do ACs not understand this?

    9. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is "sexual mistreatment"?

      Not staying for breakfast. Slipping accidentally into another hole not specified beforehand. Since I have never had any sex I can't think of anything else myself.

    10. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tor has the right to terminate their employees pursuant to their contracts. They do not need to go to a court of law. Why do ACs not understand this?

      Because they're making a claim of criminal guilt and doing and end run around our legal system to slime this gentleman and ruin his life via a public shaming mob with no evidence, just claims that have been proven to be lies.

    11. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Because they're making a claim of criminal guilt

      Where did they say that?

    12. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The website explains their reasoning for not going to a court of law"

      And they've just given themselves a big shot in the foot. Jacob now has recourse to say "If these were true, why were the police never notified AS REQUIRED BY LAW?"

      Anyone who has to explain why they didn't go to the police is full of shit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, isn't that something people pay a lot of money for? Does this side business violate TOR's TOS?

    14. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by Udom · · Score: 1

      The firing and the release of damaging information are two separate issues. The firing is likely a genuine attempt to deal with allegations of wrongdoing, but the release of information appears to serve no other purpose than to destroy Appelbaum's reputation.

    15. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by piojo · · Score: 1

      And they've just given themselves a big shot in the foot. Jacob now has recourse to say "If these were true, why were the police never notified AS REQUIRED BY LAW?"

      It doesn't work that way. You can't use someone else's criminal misconduct in your own defense. It's just not part of the picture. It would only help to make the opposition look slightly less credible.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    16. Re:"Sexual mistreatment"? by piojo · · Score: 1

      This situation is uglier and scarier than I would have believed. To summarize, Jacob is being persecuted for something he didn't do, by someone that wasn't involved.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  18. thanks for all the fish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't care about the article but i did come to bid farewell. i have lurked this site for years, typically finding very insightful and interesting discussions and points i'd otherwise not be exposed to. i stopped checking /. hourly, then daily, then weekly.. figure can't sleep might as well give her a whirl for old time's sake and am bombarded with advertisements on my handset. maybe i'm just a relic but i believe in respecting and empowering users. cheers and thanks for everything.

    1. Re:thanks for all the fish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree /. is marginal, but for realsies-- get an ad-blocker. I can't remember the last time I've seen an ad on the internet.

    2. Re:thanks for all the fish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adblock Plus- I forgot there even are ads on Slashdot.

  19. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck cares?!?

  20. Time to stop using tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously backdoored, and they are using a "sexual harrasment that would not stand up in court" as a cover for removing people that are resisting.

    1. Re:Time to stop using tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like too many people on this former tech site turned misogynistic conspiracy site, you're suffering from paranoid delusions.

  21. Steele's husband works for the NSA! by _Mr_Dude_123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did anybody wonder if there is something funny with Shari Steele? - her husband is working with the NSA. and probably works/worked for the NSA: https://bvass.wordpress.com/ta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Steele's husband works for the NSA! by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Did you know that the NSA has authored large sections of the Linux kernel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      That's what their cooperation was about. Good find, Sherlock.

  22. GUILTY in the Kangaroo court of SJW Law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I had absolutely no idea that Shari Steele and the Tor Project Administration was a court of law!

    Oh wait, they're not? Fascinating!

    But boy howdy, you gotta admire their moxie. After all they did their own little investigation and found him guilty all by themselves. No pesky evidence or defense lawyers needed -- just enough harpies claiming victimization (but not enough to actually go to the police) and you too can destroy someone's life forever. ... ESPECIALLY interesting since one of the "victims" later pointed out that she wasn't a victim, it was a bunch of SJWs speaking on her behalf without permission to create a lynch mob towards Jacob...

    (Although I have it on good authority she's suffering from internalized misogyny and thus you should believe the 3rd party witnesses over her statements, because Third Wave Feminists represent all women, even women who don't want to be represented by them. ESPECIALLY those kinds of women.)

    Remember there was an active attempt to frame Linus Torvalds with sexual assault allegations. Around the same time you saw these types trying to push codes of conduct that were backdoors to get editorial control over projects they were targeting.

    So everyone needs to be a tiny bit wary when hearing stories like this, especially when you see these SJW style shame lynch mob tactics used. No evidence, mobbing tactics, public shaming, threatening people who question the narrative, and demanding reparations for perceived slights in the form of policy changes and increased decision making power to their political allies. It's a playbook that targets some known exploits in our culture -- namely that everyone's hesitant to demand evidence of an overly emotional woman, and everyone's first response is to beat up whomever she's pointing at and ask questions later.

    If there are actual allegations, they need to be taken to a court of law. If they won't hold up in a court of law, recognize it for what it is -- bitchy ex girlfriends wanting to slander an ex boyfriend they're mad at. Don't let the Kangaroo Court bullshit that's infested our campuses start leaking out into the real world.

    And if you want to implement an "anti-harassment" policy for your project: Don't. It's a stupid fucking idea leading to drama and abuse by lesser minds.

    If you are really looking for a nice Code of Conduct, aim for the Code of Merit - because as ESR has so adamantly pointed out, "We must constantly demand merit – performance, intelligence, dedication, and technical excellence – of ourselves and each other."

    SJW Codes of Conduct like the Orwellian Contributor Covenant by Coraline Ada Ehmke (who is tied to Model View Culture, which is ran by white supremacist "feminist" Shanley Kane, which is also tied to the Ada Initiative's two founders, which was the group attempting to frame Linus for rape...) are nothing more than a way to backdoor losers like Ehmke and her ilk into projects they don't deserve access to.

    1. Re:GUILTY in the Kangaroo court of SJW Law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. This one's the real deal.

      Jacob is scum who takes credit for others work. He's also manipulative.

      The cult of the dead cow kicked him out. On their own initiative.

      This guy is a grade A asshole. It's not a false alarm.

    2. Re:GUILTY in the Kangaroo court of SJW Law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then apparently women _are_ attracted to assholes, because browsing a couple of the links in comments showed woman A with "I was laying in bed with Jacob" and woman B's "I was at the bar sitting on Jacob's lap".

    3. Re:GUILTY in the Kangaroo court of SJW Law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down and have a juice box, Jacob.

  23. Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Ah - Eric S. Raymond - enough said.
    While he's done a few things of note in one area he's a bit of a goose in others.
    See also his introduction of the word "Fisking" into the jargon file as an example of how utter full of shit he is at times when he has a political agenda to push - in that case opposition to anyone even mildly critical of Israel, in this case he's definitely been very upset with feminist politics on occasion instead of just ignoring something that's never going to impact on his life in any way at all.

    Raymond quoted excerpts from an online chat with a trusted source, who told him that the Ada Inititiative, a recently-discontinued feminist advocacy group in tech, was trying to “collect scalps” by concocting charges of attempted sexual assault against male software developers.

    In other words utter fucking bullshit passed on at least twice from who knows where before posted on 4chan or whatever.

    1. Re:Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Certainly possible he's full of shit, totally. Regardless things happen on both sides of this which is total dogshit lies but it seems only one side is apparently infallible, which is ridiculous.

    2. Re:Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Certainly possible he's full of shit, totally

      Read a few things he's written over the years to remove all doubt, especially the "Fisking" idiocy, but that "targetted" thing is even more ridiculous. Somebody he won't name says an org that no longer exists was going to play James Bond honeypot games? Seriously?
      You've been misled by the Lindbergh effect - somebody with fame in one area can push some ideas that are not exactly sane in other areas.

    3. Re:Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by dbIII · · Score: 1

      but it seems only one side is apparently infallible

      I never said that, and besides there is only one side here with Eric S. Raymond's claims that day.
      Nothing else to see so no other side to call a liar or not.
      Read his other stuff and make up your own mind - either fall for it or hone that bullshit detector.

    4. Re:Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Eric S. Raymond
      > while he has done....
      > "a goose"
      > Fisking Isreal
      > upset with feminists
      > 4chan
      I don't care if ESR openly praises death camps in North Korea! He's still earned more credibility here than underhanded character assassins like yourself. Address the point, not the man, or kindly Fuck Off sir.

    5. Re:Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Read his stuff and you will understand why I have written that.
      Also that IS the point being addressed - the "Linus is being targeted" thing comes ENTIRELY from Eric S. Raymond. There is no second source.

      He's still earned more credibility

      Read his stuff - he's lost all credibility on some issues hence my "Ah - Eric S. Raymond - enough said" comment.

    6. Re:Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Yes, he's clearly full of shit because I've never been on the receiving end of a false rape accusation and it couldn't ever happen to me because I'm sooo goooood with women.

      I've also never had a woman come to me specifically to sexually harass me to try to set me up for further character assassination because I'm soooo gooood with women.

    7. Re:Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Now that is weird.

    8. Re:Eric S. Raymond wouldn't have a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know several former members of the board of the Ada Initiative. The claims that they'd entrap free and open software developers are nonsense.

      Now, the idea that one of the convention creepy crawlies who follows around all women wearing slightly naughty costumes at conventions, like the "Naughty Nurses" blood drive at Arisia every year, and hangs around them and tries to impress them with how much python and javascript they've done and they're going to be a game developer when they move out of their mom's basement, *them* I can understand overhearing a frank discussion between some Ada Initiative members and going "ooohhh, they're targetting important developers, ewwww, it's a plot, a movement, wahhh!!!". And pretending that it's about the developers and not just about that unwashed ill-mannered skeezhead, then whinging to Eric Raymond about it.

      Sadly, there were a lot of these kinds of fools. I used to make a hobby of saving women from them, but then I married one.

  24. This is why we shouldn't work with women by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0, Troll

    The fact that women can and do tear down entire, functional and productive organizations and destroy mens careers like this with some tears and stories is why they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the first place.

    If he assaulted you, you should be down at the police station with wounds you received defending yourself. If you didn't defend yourself, then quit asking us to take your claims of assault seriously.

    This shit has to stop. These bitches need to start being publicly identified and shunned, along with the organizations that coddle them.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:This is why we shouldn't work with women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah!!!!! also, lawyers have to eat too man!

    2. Re:This is why we shouldn't work with women by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If he assaulted you, you should be down at the police station with wounds you received defending yourself. If you didn't defend yourself, then quit asking us to take your claims of assault seriously.

      So, how many women have you psychologically abused into compliance and then raped so far?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: This is why we shouldn't work with women by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Right. I'm a 20 year old faggot. I've been posting on SD since I was 10.

      Fucking idiot.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:This is why we shouldn't work with women by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Do you still beat your wife?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:This is why we shouldn't work with women by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do you still beat your wife?

      First, I don't have a wife, and never have, so I never could have beaten my wife, since I never have had one. So that's a stupid question.

      It's also a stupid question because it completely mischaracterizes the situation. You are making claims about rape that make it clear that you don't understand what rape is. If you don't even know what rape is, how can you avoid it? But actually, it's much worse than that: in fact, you willfully believe situations which are rape not to be rape. There's no reason for you to do that except for justifying some of your behavior, which leads to the expectation that you are a rapist. By contrast, I have said nothing condoning wife-beating, or in fact any other kind of violence, which makes your question an obvious distraction from how rapey your beliefs are. People usually act on their beliefs (not stated ones, but actual ones) so it's reasonable to assume that you're a rapist. But since I have consistently spoken against violence, it's not reasonable to assume that I'm a wife-beater.

      Now, if you want to retract the statements that make it clear that you don't understand what rape is, what effect is has on someone's emotional condition, and so on, then perhaps people will think less that you're a rapist. But right now, you've effectively condoned rape, so it's a reasonable assumption.

      TL;DR: You're an idiot, and probably a rapist, based on what you said. If you meant to say something other than "if you didn't fight back it wasn't rape" then I'm all ears, but until you do that, I'm assuming that your sexual "partners" are just women who didn't fight back.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: This is why we shouldn't work with women by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      There was that one time... I was at a party and joked to my buddies "Why do people always say they're going to pick up a woman, but they never do? This is how you pick up a woman.", then turned around, grabbed the nearest cutie and thew her over my shoulder.

      Then I carried her out of the apartment, down the street to my apartment building, up the stairs and through the apartment, threw her on the bed, tore her clothes off and fucked her brains out.

      I never actually asked her for consent, but she was giggling the whole way there, so, I dunno... does that count?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    7. Re: This is why we shouldn't work with women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And STDH.txt gains another entry...

    8. Re: This is why we shouldn't work with women by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, that it did happen.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    9. Re: This is why we shouldn't work with women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it did, buddy.

    10. Re: This is why we shouldn't work with women by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Is there room in your brain for the possibility that you're just sheltered?

      I tried asking a woman for consent once. She was in my bed, and I said "Tell me you want it."

      Silence.

      "Tell me you want it."

      Silence.

      "Tell me you don't want it."

      Silence.

      "Tell me something."

      Silence.

      I got fed up, rolled over and went to sleep.

      Next day, her girlfriend is explaining how she wanted me so bad, that's why she was there, but she couldn't say the words, because she wanted to remain a good girl. She wanted me to be the bad guy so she could have what she wanted while remaining the good girl.

      That's our job as men. To take the risks, be the domineering, "bad" guy. No matter how many laws are passed that could put us in jail for trying, no matter how dangerous they make it, no matter how much they criminalize healthy, natural interactions between men and women, it's still our job.

      Ever heard the stereotypical "I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to do it." line women like to say?

      That's them telling you, in plain english, that they value their submissive role more than they value having all the other things they want.

      That's human nature.

      The women who are making all the noise don't speak for women. They're freakish outliers, not representatives of their gender. Most of their gender simply doesn't wish to speak up at all.

      Pandering to them does not mean you're "respecting women".

      Might I suggest you conduct an experiment to confirm or refute? Go visit a small town where you won't feel concerned about embarressing yourself and having to see them at the grocery store, and experiment with behaving as though you were a man.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    11. Re: This is why we shouldn't work with women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that didn't happen either.

  25. A bit more to quote by dbIII · · Score: 1

    consistent with reports of SJW dezinformatsiya tactics from elsewhere

    Note Eric's fucking huge chip on his shoulder from his wording. Expect bias.

    If true, these claims will rock the world of software development

    Notice how they didn't rock anything? Life went on and it's a year later. Maybe Eric's blog rant was just another of Eric's blog rants.

    If you are going to bring it up again I suggest you mention Eric's name instead of defaming Linus. I thought you were bringing up something new that actually involved Linus instead of Eric's deranged rant of "deliberately planned and persistent campaign to frame Linus" which for some reason Linus was not able to notice.

    1. Re:A bit more to quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I not only expect bias but prefer it. Are you saying you have no stance/position one way or another?

      Pretending you have no stance one way or another while keeping yourself part of a conversation makes you either an idiot or a liar.

    2. Re:A bit more to quote by dbIII · · Score: 1

      My stance is obviously that I consider ESR unreliable and biased and no other source of his supposedly second-hand claim has surfaced.
      Thus suggesting that Linus has had to act differently is nothing but relaying ESR's expectation of what Linus would have to do in the future and not something based on what Linus has ever done. I think it should be treated like any other blog rant and not as if it was based on real events because those events did not happen before the blog post and do not seem to have happened afterwards.
      Clear yet?

  26. Jake Judenbomb TORpedo of lust! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He tried to put his puny TORpedo back in a tube where it belongs to stop it from exploding. It did anyway. On his face!

  27. you should not go to sleep with a dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you are a girl, you should not go to sleep with a dude and say "no sexy times", the guy is not going to sleep, the guy is rolling to the side and hiding his boner, and not sleeping. And that is cruel, have him sleeping on the floor, on the dog house, knock him unconcious for the night, anything

    also if somehow the guy manages to sleep, how the hell do you expect to not touch anything weird eventually, i sleep with a massive boner every single night, the chances i roll to the side and stab you somewhere with my boner are high, its not like when i wake up im thinking about stabing you, its just that at that moment im merely a sleepy thing thats attached to a staby boner

    the hand down pants applebaum situation is avoidable by the guy because the hand doesnt think by itself, like the boner does, so even if the guy does not want to take advantage of you, there are risks right there of encountering a wild boner

    also morning wood is different, its not like any other wood, when we have a random boner thru the day, we all can make it go away, we just think of margaret thatcher, and its gone, its something universal, we all do it, a guy in africa is climbing a tree about to get a delicious fruit from it, gets a boner, and thinks about thatcher, is universal.
    Morning wood is not like that, because wanting to pee is a factor and it just wont go away until you pee, you can even think of hillary clinton, it wont go away until you pee

  28. Sounds like an OK dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read all the stories about him at http://jacobappelbaum.net/.
    Overall it seems like he is pretty much an aggressive sexual partner.
    A lot of women are into that. Some arent but are too weak to resist his advances then they cry about it? wtf?

  29. You do realize by wiredog · · Score: 2

    that Tor is a US Government supported project, right? The DoS is a big supporter.

  30. Re:Why is it women's fault by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Eww. Tell your five bucks they have a foul mouth and that they shouldn't put images in peoples' heads.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  31. Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was really as in this article , this would be something for the police, and yes german woudl extradite him for that. But it was done that way, right ? It is instead a plain accusation , libel on a web page. I am for hunting sexual predator. But I am for doing it in the justice system where everybody has its says to the court. THIS link is repugnant it is vigilantism and libel mixed. And that remind me of Matress girl.

  32. Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man - Bill Clinton by schwit1 · · Score: 2
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    • 1 Juanita Broaddrick
    • 2 Dolly Kyle
    • 3 Paula Jones
    • 4 Kathleen Willey
    • 5 Gennifer Flowers
    • 6 etc
  33. OMG, "sexual misconduct"!!.. by mi · · Score: 1

    The only "sexual misconduct" worth discussing by millions of people, most of whom have never even heard the names of the parties, is rape. And even then — only on specialized forums.

    Why is this on Slashdot's "front page"? It is nothing compared to the other sad facts of life, such as, for just one example, that 78% of Of Female Birds Sexually Harassed By Strangers.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  34. Next Steps For Tor Project by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    Safe rooms for developers and trigger warnings in all code and enforcement by IRC bots.

  35. Jesus Christ! This is Terrifying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm completely unwilling to accept any of this at face value. This thing wreaks of bullshit!

    But the accusation website that the anonymous "victims" have created is positively terrifying. They whine of their fear of being "doxed", but look at what they gleefully do to this guy. Holy shit!

    Their excuses for not going to authorities are just that, (lame) excuses. All other highly questionable accusations of intimidation and harassment aside, they accuse this man of rape. If this is real, or I am to take any of it seriously, this must be reported to police and formal charges be brought. It doesn't matter that he moved to Berlin, formal charges can and should still be filed.He can absolutely be extradited on rape charges. Saying that he left the country is is fallacious whining that causes me to doubt the veracity of these faceless accusers even more.

    But, to think that faceless people could put up such a website, using his own name for the domain, is deeply disturbing.

  36. One of those standardly vague articles by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Is there any list of specific acts by Applebaum that prompted this controversy? Or is this another nerd clumsily asking women for dates, Clarence Thomas style?

  37. Who do you think it's backdoored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tor is backdoored. You can see that from the ease with which the Feds locate sites and users.

    Can you connect these two distant dots? (Because what you "see" is extremely different from what everyone else is seeing.) What did you find, or what did you learn from the Fed's successes, which suggests a back door?

  38. Re:Best adblocker there is (& more, for less) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking stupid APK? This guy is on MOBILE.

    AKA your shit hosts files does ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING.

    This is why APK's stuff is untrustworthy - he can't even be bothered to read, he just spouts off with his bullshit HOSTS (which every modern operating system and most modern browsers are now actively bypassing.)

  39. one of my peeves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Managers should not be having any kind of sexual encounters with subordinates, even if it is consensual

    Even if it's not criminal harassment, it's so amazingly stupid!

    One of my wife's co-workers basically doesn't have to work at work anymore, because she fucked the manager for a few months and then they broke up. She's got that on him now, so she can never be disciplined. Her peers are pissed because they have to do her work, but nothing can ever be done about it. Everyone's morale is total shit.

    He is going to have a worthless underling until he or she changes positions (so the non-worker can be someone else's problem). Don't get me wrong: he is a True piece of shit; I'm not trying to frame him as a victim. But everyone suffers now. It's so destructive to the org.

    Every day (I have been waiting for a couple years now, though) I hope my wife comes home and tells me that it finally blew up and they're both fired. But it never happens. And until it does, my wife's days will suck (because she does about 1.3 jobs) so I'm hearing about that every other night... These shitbags' liaisons years ago, are still tainting my evenings, and I don't even work there! Fuck!! The only hope is that my wife laterals out of that unit.

    I am totally with you about zero tolerance for shenanigans. If I'm ever a manager (alas, I'll never be one anywhere), I will be a holy terror of unstoppable hatred, wrath and VENGEANCE if I ever hear about a manager and underling fucking. Don't, just don't!! Half of the people in whole damn world have a pussy; don't go looking for it at work!

  40. Fake added SCANDAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want your mind off the actual scandal which is.. Tor is compromised.

    This post explains it all.
    https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9435259&cid=52586189

  41. Cut the crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Slashdot editors and modedators

    Please cut the crap with these SJW articles that only talk/write about gossip and unproven information.

    Thank you!

    Yours Truly
    Anonymous Coward

  42. Sure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. funny how people who are working against the power elite are said to have committed sexual misconduct.

    I don't believe the accusations for a second without proof.

  43. utter confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks, learn the difference among "sexual harassment," "unwanted sexual contact," "sexual assault," and "rape."

    "Sexual harassment" includes saying something mean to a woman, saying something unpleasant to anyone, and a woman finds out and deems it creates a "hostile workplace." For example, using the word "fuck." This is not a crime.

    "Unwanted sexual contact" includes touching a woman who doesn't want to be touched. This can include a butt tap, or even putting an arm around a woman, or touching her shoulder, if she deems it to be "sexual." This is not a crime, except possibly in the US military.

    "Sexual assault" is a crime, but it is defined differently in different jurisdictions. Usually it involves force, penetration with an object, etc. It can also involve groping, including breasts or genitals.

    "Rape" also is defined differently in different jurisdictions. In some it involves use of the male member. In others, penetration by anything. Lack of consent results in rape. What is "lack of consent"? In some jurisdictions it means the woman being under the age of 18, no matter what she said. In some, if the woman has had any alcohol she is incapable of giving consent, and intercourse is therefore rape.

    Advocates are constantly trying to confuse these different acts, and constantly trying to define the terms downward, so that any sexual assault is rape, any unwanted "sexual" contact is sexual assault, and any "sexual harassment" is sexual assault.

    1. Re:utter confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and "I'm unattracted to you" is sexual harassment.

  44. Re:Don't even care anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all I know, the guy just looked at female employees... or maybe asked them to do some work. Thanks to SJW's I literally couldn't care any less about these things

    The guy looked at and made advances towards male employees too. Does that disturb you?

  45. Re:Best adblocker there is (& more, for less) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mobile phones have hosts files. I use one on my rooted droid and used adb to place a new custom hosts file on it using the debugging bridge's pull command.

  46. Android Debugging Bridge anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Android Debugging Bridge is an example of how to put hosts on a smartphone (rooted).

    Linux, MacOS X + Windows ALL have hosts files & they work on them.

    HOWEVER:

    Only Windows afaik "bypasses" hosts for Windows update (a good thing IF hosts is hijacked - not possible in usermode while my program is running) for ALL builds of Windows!

    For "modern Windows 10" spyware (it is) firewall rules take care of the "telemetry" (I have a ruleset that does it)

    OR

    You can avoid the 'update patches' that install it say, on Windows 7, via a few simple registry hacks (there's automated tools that do it too).

    * Due to ALL of the above? You have FAILED...

    APK

    P.S.=> You're stupid & untrustworthy ac troll (projecting your OWN failures beforehand unsuccessfully onto me due to YOUR LIES & TECHNICAL BLUNDERS I just corrected...)... apk

  47. Flamebait for perversion! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    [Moderation] BINGO!

    Guess what: you normal people are the problem. Perverts' motto is "safe, sane and consensual"

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  48. Not posting anonymously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice I am not posting anonymously

    You're kidding, right? You're hiding behind a pseudonym and not even showing your email address publicly. Jacob would have no fucking clue who the hell you are. You are no less anonymous than I am.

  49. Tor needs a back door by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole series of events is proof that Tor is in desperate need of a back door.
    We must be able to prevent the use of Tor for harassment, as it has been used against female members of the Tor project by Jacob's supporters.

  50. Fire Roger the Rape Enabler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roger Dingledine knew about Jacob's behavior, that's why he was fired immediately.
    Roger needs to be fired too, he's a sociopath who allowed his friend to rape women with impunity.

  51. Seriously? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You are the one that's pretending that all non-convictions mean the woman was a lying bitch making it all up.

    There are many reasons not just that one as you know but are pretending not to - that false stupidity to push a point must be taught in school debating or something, so much of that shit around.
    For example - often when it's without doubt that a crime has been committed it's not clear who did it.
    You are lumping that in with your "cry wolf" numbers.

    You are getting the number for a collection of fruit and pretending they are all apples when there are mostly oranges in the mix.

  52. Accusation -> Punishment directly by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    This must be the Brave New World I hear so much of - the one where one procedes directly from accusation to punishment without going through pesky intervening stages like "trial" and "conviction". At lest, that is my impression. So, since the accusation has been made and trial and conviction are being bypassed I can go directly to punishing the people involved for attempting to undermine the fundamental human rights of the accused.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"