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.
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.
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.
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.
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++
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.
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.
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.
OP has obviously never backpacked, where mixed gender shared rooms are common.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/...
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
that Tor is a US Government supported project, right? The DoS is a big supporter.
Best Slashdot Co
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
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.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
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."
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."
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.
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.