4 ms·

Court orders three H-1B opposition sites disabled

32 points by prat 17y ago

cwan 17y ago
Not knowing the details of the judgement, a shut down seems a bit heavy handed and only more likely to bring scorn/attention to Apex (this despite the fact, I disagree with what these opposition groups are advocating). On one hand I sympathize with Apex in that it seems fundamentally wrong that there are those who can attack you with impunity and anonymously online - particularly if they're lying about it. On the other, pursuing court action especially since it is unlikely that those running these sites have deep pockets seems like a PR disaster in the making (not to mention the fact that I think most readers take anonymous postings with a big grain of salt anyway - the legal suit for some will lend legitimacy to those false claims with many suspecting that 'the lady doth protest too much' and that their point may just be about revealing who those posters are to take retribution).
- huherto 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect I didn't even know Apex existed.
- gorbachev 17y ago
  I'm in the same boat with you. I don't visit the anti-H1B sites, because I want to keep my blood pressure down and I don't tolerate racist bigots that well, but the ComputerWorld article about the closure of the websites is troubling. Either there're details the article left out or the judge is seriously overstepping his authority. I thought it was a long held principle that community sites can not be held responsible for users' content. The story a month or so ago about the family of a woman whose ex-boyfriend has posted all kinds of derogatory and threatening material on multiple websites (incl. RipoffReport.com, who is the only website refusing the take down the content) has a completely different outcome. The judge in that case said he can't force the websites to take down the content, but several have done so voluntarily, RipoffReport.com being the only holdout. I wonder if the fact that that case had an individual plaintiff rather than a company has anything to do with the different outcome?
gecko 17y ago
Wait. This is a libel lawsuit in the U.S., which means that they're suing because someone said something about them which is false. They then also want the legal contract that started this whole thing taken down because they own the copyright on it. Either this is atrociously bad reporting, or the judge is an idiot. Even though we're talking about New Jersey here, I'll put my weight on the first.
- tel 17y ago
  Libel doesn't have to be false, just damaging.
  - mschy 17y ago
    I'm pretty sure that in the US, it not only has to be false, but the person making the statement must have either known it to be false, or shown negligence in not verifying the veracity of the statement.
    - btilly 17y ago
      That's right. However this varies by country. The extreme example being England, where the truth of the statement doesn't matter. Libel lawsuits in England are similar to patent lawsuits in Texas - you know that the venue was chosen mainly because the person filing the suit wanted the friendliest court possible.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        I am ashamed to say that here in Brazil the situation is very similar. It is very easy to bring litigation upon someone who said something someone else doesn't find appropriate and to go as far as censoring the information. There is currently one major newspaper that is under censorship that prevents it from reporting on a corrupt former president who is currently serving as a senator and his family. The freedom of speech devices in the Constitution prohibit anonymity, rendering themselves ineffective.
  - lmkg 17y ago
cema 17y ago
I think this is a troubling attack on free speech. If there is a lawyer here who could comment it, or if someone reading this can provide helpful links, please do! At the same time, I feel the article does not present sufficient information so I could make a personal judgment on the texts that caused the judge to make such a drastic decision -- does anyone know if copies or excerpts are available? Thank you!
vaksel 17y ago
can someone explain to me how a site can be disabled over something like this? I mean go ahead, order the content deleted, that's what the people suing should want right? But killing a site over some "bad" information just seems excessive.
- olegk 17y ago
  It's kind of scary that a website can be shut down just like that. I'm sure they will find hosting out of US jurisdiction anyway, but still, it almost seems like violation of freedom of speech. (p.s. I don't oppose H1B program)
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Agreed, even though I am OK with the H1-B program. I doubt this judgment will stand on appeal, but perhaps they're gambling that the website operators won't have the money for that. disappointing behavior from a judge who doesn't seem to understand the internet.
billswift 17y ago
>"Apex has an outstanding reputation in the information technology field," he said. >In the filing, Apex said it "has had three consultants refuse to report for employment" as a result postings, according to legal documents. Its reputation is good but three different people didn't "report for employment" (whatever that means) as a result of anonymous claims on the Internet? Apparently, somebody didn't think much of their reputation.
ibsulon 17y ago
Let's just say that Apex doesn't have a stellar reputation in other areas either. I personally would never recommend that anyone sub under Apex, but considering that Apex is already doing C&D, I won't go into details.
btilly 17y ago
From my point of view the whole H-1B process is a mess. What it boils down to is that companies are given the opportunity to hire foreigners who are used to much lower salaries under conditions where said foreigners will have lower job mobility. This means that companies have every incentive to hire people more cheaply than they can hire locals. But in order to do so they have to put up a pretense of having tried to hire an American and have to swear up and down that they can't find an American to hire. In short we're putting pressure on companies to lie and everyone knows it. However it is difficult to demonstrate whether any given company has, and it is very much not in their interest to let accusations of it stand. Is there any wonder that we get conflict over this? What I would prefer instead is a simple market based solution. Any company wishing to hire a foreigner can upon posting a bond for that foreigner. (To cover expenses if that foreigner poses a problem.) The foreigner has no obligation to their employer - if the foreigner wishes to leave a week after arriving for a better job they are free to, but the original company still is liable for the bond. Under that system companies have no obligation to claim that they looked for a local. However they have a clear incentive not to hire foreigners. Any company that hires a foreigner regardless is demonstrating by their action that either this foreigner is exceptionally valuable (and therefore is a good addition to the USA economy) or else that there really is a lack of available locals to do this job.
- euroclydon 17y ago
  A bond, hmmm, well if the bond automatically went into the bank account of the local immigration attorney, this idea might stand a chance.
- pierrefar 17y ago
  A much better way are the points based systems found in Australia, Canada, and the UK. The details vary but it works like this: the government creates a system where each candidate is scored against. The final score needs to be higher than a threshold for the candidate to be granted a work permit and residency visa. The government decides what to score based on its idea of what's a useful addition to the economy. In the UK these include the highest degree earned, the last 12 months' earnings (weighted by country of earnings), English proficiency, etc. It also can add bonus points to professions it wants to attract - say nurses or doctors. The UK used to give automatic full points to an MBA holder under the HSMP visa scheme! PhDs didn't get this red carpet.
naveensundar 17y ago
I checked out http://guestworkerfraud.com/ http://guestworkerfraud.com/ which is still accessible. I would not have any problem if it were just against H1B or "guest workers", but reading through the first few posts it seems racist. For example "So much for "high-thinking Indians" - not only are they all frauds, they are all introlerant on top of it."
- Scriptor 17y ago
  Even better, because Thailand apparently deported a few thousand, this site advocates the deportation of all Indian-Americans. It's basically a hate site. I'm not sure if there are grounds for it to be taken down, but otherwise most of the posts sound like rants by some unemployed goof.
sireat 17y ago
Wikileaks time (once they go back to operations). This would be a good time to donate something. Disclaimer: I do not particularly have an opinion for or against H-1B, but airing of dirty laundry(aka free speech) should be supported.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
neuro 17y ago
http://www.vdare.com/sanchez/091227_tunnel_rat.htm http://www.vdare.com/sanchez/091227_tunnel_rat.htm The APEX rampage against “Tunnel Rat” began when an anonymous Indian poster who claims to work for APEX posted a copy of an APEX employment agreement that he asserted imposed penalties of up to $35,000 for quitting. He wrote: “If you join a company (including any level between you and APEX) then pay $35,000 or face a law suit, $9,000 for legal, training and guest services when you quit. $35,000 if you quit in between a contract…etc. The legalities of the agreement are convoluted, abstract and can/will be used against you if you displease APEX Technology Group Inc. So once you sign that document you are at the mercy of the employer and much worse than a bonded laborer in India."

32 points by prat 17y ago

cwan 17y ago

Not knowing the details of the judgement, a shut down seems a bit heavy handed and only more likely to bring scorn/attention to Apex (this despite the fact, I disagree with what these opposition groups are advocating). On one hand I sympathize with Apex in that it seems fundamentally wrong that there are those who can attack you with impunity and anonymously online - particularly if they're lying about it. On the other, pursuing court action especially since it is unlikely that those running these sites have deep pockets seems like a PR disaster in the making (not to mention the fact that I think most readers take anonymous postings with a big grain of salt anyway - the legal suit for some will lend legitimacy to those false claims with many suspecting that 'the lady doth protest too much' and that their point may just be about revealing who those posters are to take retribution).

huherto 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect I didn't even know Apex existed.
gorbachev 17y ago
I'm in the same boat with you. I don't visit the anti-H1B sites, because I want to keep my blood pressure down and I don't tolerate racist bigots that well, but the ComputerWorld article about the closure of the websites is troubling. Either there're details the article left out or the judge is seriously overstepping his authority. I thought it was a long held principle that community sites can not be held responsible for users' content. The story a month or so ago about the family of a woman whose ex-boyfriend has posted all kinds of derogatory and threatening material on multiple websites (incl. RipoffReport.com, who is the only website refusing the take down the content) has a completely different outcome. The judge in that case said he can't force the websites to take down the content, but several have done so voluntarily, RipoffReport.com being the only holdout. I wonder if the fact that that case had an individual plaintiff rather than a company has anything to do with the different outcome?

gecko 17y ago

Wait. This is a libel lawsuit in the U.S., which means that they're suing because someone said something about them which is false. They then also want the legal contract that started this whole thing taken down because they own the copyright on it. Either this is atrociously bad reporting, or the judge is an idiot. Even though we're talking about New Jersey here, I'll put my weight on the first.

tel 17y ago
Libel doesn't have to be false, just damaging.
- mschy 17y ago
  I'm pretty sure that in the US, it not only has to be false, but the person making the statement must have either known it to be false, or shown negligence in not verifying the veracity of the statement.
  - btilly 17y ago
    That's right. However this varies by country. The extreme example being England, where the truth of the statement doesn't matter. Libel lawsuits in England are similar to patent lawsuits in Texas - you know that the venue was chosen mainly because the person filing the suit wanted the friendliest court possible.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      I am ashamed to say that here in Brazil the situation is very similar. It is very easy to bring litigation upon someone who said something someone else doesn't find appropriate and to go as far as censoring the information. There is currently one major newspaper that is under censorship that prevents it from reporting on a corrupt former president who is currently serving as a senator and his family. The freedom of speech devices in the Constitution prohibit anonymity, rendering themselves ineffective.
- lmkg 17y ago

cema 17y ago

I think this is a troubling attack on free speech. If there is a lawyer here who could comment it, or if someone reading this can provide helpful links, please do! At the same time, I feel the article does not present sufficient information so I could make a personal judgment on the texts that caused the judge to make such a drastic decision -- does anyone know if copies or excerpts are available? Thank you!

vaksel 17y ago

can someone explain to me how a site can be disabled over something like this? I mean go ahead, order the content deleted, that's what the people suing should want right? But killing a site over some "bad" information just seems excessive.

olegk 17y ago
It's kind of scary that a website can be shut down just like that. I'm sure they will find hosting out of US jurisdiction anyway, but still, it almost seems like violation of freedom of speech. (p.s. I don't oppose H1B program)
anigbrowl 17y ago
Agreed, even though I am OK with the H1-B program. I doubt this judgment will stand on appeal, but perhaps they're gambling that the website operators won't have the money for that. disappointing behavior from a judge who doesn't seem to understand the internet.

billswift 17y ago

>"Apex has an outstanding reputation in the information technology field," he said. >In the filing, Apex said it "has had three consultants refuse to report for employment" as a result postings, according to legal documents. Its reputation is good but three different people didn't "report for employment" (whatever that means) as a result of anonymous claims on the Internet? Apparently, somebody didn't think much of their reputation.

ibsulon 17y ago

Let's just say that Apex doesn't have a stellar reputation in other areas either. I personally would never recommend that anyone sub under Apex, but considering that Apex is already doing C&D, I won't go into details.

btilly 17y ago

From my point of view the whole H-1B process is a mess. What it boils down to is that companies are given the opportunity to hire foreigners who are used to much lower salaries under conditions where said foreigners will have lower job mobility. This means that companies have every incentive to hire people more cheaply than they can hire locals. But in order to do so they have to put up a pretense of having tried to hire an American and have to swear up and down that they can't find an American to hire. In short we're putting pressure on companies to lie and everyone knows it. However it is difficult to demonstrate whether any given company has, and it is very much not in their interest to let accusations of it stand. Is there any wonder that we get conflict over this? What I would prefer instead is a simple market based solution. Any company wishing to hire a foreigner can upon posting a bond for that foreigner. (To cover expenses if that foreigner poses a problem.) The foreigner has no obligation to their employer - if the foreigner wishes to leave a week after arriving for a better job they are free to, but the original company still is liable for the bond. Under that system companies have no obligation to claim that they looked for a local. However they have a clear incentive not to hire foreigners. Any company that hires a foreigner regardless is demonstrating by their action that either this foreigner is exceptionally valuable (and therefore is a good addition to the USA economy) or else that there really is a lack of available locals to do this job.

euroclydon 17y ago
A bond, hmmm, well if the bond automatically went into the bank account of the local immigration attorney, this idea might stand a chance.
pierrefar 17y ago
A much better way are the points based systems found in Australia, Canada, and the UK. The details vary but it works like this: the government creates a system where each candidate is scored against. The final score needs to be higher than a threshold for the candidate to be granted a work permit and residency visa. The government decides what to score based on its idea of what's a useful addition to the economy. In the UK these include the highest degree earned, the last 12 months' earnings (weighted by country of earnings), English proficiency, etc. It also can add bonus points to professions it wants to attract - say nurses or doctors. The UK used to give automatic full points to an MBA holder under the HSMP visa scheme! PhDs didn't get this red carpet.

naveensundar 17y ago

I checked out http://guestworkerfraud.com/ http://guestworkerfraud.com/ which is still accessible. I would not have any problem if it were just against H1B or "guest workers", but reading through the first few posts it seems racist. For example "So much for "high-thinking Indians" - not only are they all frauds, they are all introlerant on top of it."

Scriptor 17y ago
Even better, because Thailand apparently deported a few thousand, this site advocates the deportation of all Indian-Americans. It's basically a hate site. I'm not sure if there are grounds for it to be taken down, but otherwise most of the posts sound like rants by some unemployed goof.

sireat 17y ago

Wikileaks time (once they go back to operations). This would be a good time to donate something. Disclaimer: I do not particularly have an opinion for or against H-1B, but airing of dirty laundry(aka free speech) should be supported.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

neuro 17y ago

http://www.vdare.com/sanchez/091227_tunnel_rat.htm http://www.vdare.com/sanchez/091227_tunnel_rat.htm The APEX rampage against “Tunnel Rat” began when an anonymous Indian poster who claims to work for APEX posted a copy of an APEX employment agreement that he asserted imposed penalties of up to $35,000 for quitting. He wrote: “If you join a company (including any level between you and APEX) then pay $35,000 or face a law suit, $9,000 for legal, training and guest services when you quit. $35,000 if you quit in between a contract…etc. The legalities of the agreement are convoluted, abstract and can/will be used against you if you displease APEX Technology Group Inc. So once you sign that document you are at the mercy of the employer and much worse than a bonded laborer in India."