6 ms·

In cases like this where it is word against word, I think it is important as an outsider to hedge your bet. Act as if the allegations are true and false at the

In cases like this where it is word against word, I think it is important as an outsider to hedge your bet. Act as if the allegations are true and false at the same time. Assuming they are true: make sure to create a safe space (virtually, in real live, and in discourse) for potential victims. Don't put the accused person on sensitive community functions. Take (this and further) accusations very seriously. If someone doesn't want to deal with him, don't push the matter and don't ask why. You want to avoid retraumatization of potential victims, and you want to create a climate where affected people can feel safe. You should give people raising these accusations the benefit of doubt, and resist the urge to dig for proof or to argue about what actually happened or not. Especially given how hard it is for victims to get recognition and justice by going through the "official" channels, i.e. court. (This is basically the idea that is discussed as "power of definition" among feminists in Germany; I'm not sure how it's referred to in other countries, a quick search didn't come up with much.) Assuming they are false: It's rarer than most people think that accusations of sexual abuse are falsely raised, but it is still a possibility. Especially given that he is a exposed public figure and possible target for "character assassination". Any scenario could be possible, from personal revenge to a smear campaign by an intelligence agency. One should protect oneself from this possibility, whether it is real or not. Don't exclude him from your communities. Don't stop using his software, don't judge or punish him. Don't give him the punishment of shunning. Basically you have to do an impossible balancing act. You don't want to perpetuate this patriarchal shit that lets men often get away with sexualized violence. But you also don't want whoever might be abusing this claim (agencies, personal enemies, ...) to win. So the only sane course is to be all about protection of victims, providing a safe space etc., but not punishing anybody.

hackuser 10y ago
I once was on a committee to craft a sexual assault and harassment policy for a small organization. It was an impossible task: You can't expose others, and especially the alleged victim, to a violent felon; imagine if they struck again! You also can't cost someone their job, residence, or reputation over an unsubstantiated allegation. And a small organization lacks the resources to do a valid investigation, conduct hearings, etc. You absolutely can and should treat the complainant with respect and support; nobody accused them of a crime and they should not be treated with suspicion or doubt.
geofft 10y ago
> Any scenario could be possible, from personal revenge to a smear campaign by an intelligence agency. It's also worth being aware of the possibility that Jacob Appelbaum is himself an agent of an intelligence agency (either a plant, or someone turned informant once they realized they could blackmail him and that a creep is a useful informant), and his behavior is a way to maintain his power and in turn the intelligence agency's. Argument 1: https://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-misogynists-make-great-informants-how-gender-violence-on-the-left-enables-state-violence-in-radical-movements/ https://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-misogynists-... Argument 2: https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f13da4d https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f... "But really, I thought, why would Jake be so defensive about some random [lightning talk] that might have otherwise gone completely unnoticed? If I were a government operative hell-bent on destroying the global hacker community, what would I do differently from what Jake is doing now?" I don't think this is particularly likely over the simpler explanation that he's a non-government-affiliated creep, but if we're going to give credence to "A government agency that hates Tor was behind this," it's worth looking at all the possible ways a government agency might get an advantage out of the situation.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  While conspiracy theory is a risky proposition, in this case the agencies involved are known for such things. COINTELPRO, prism etc, so it's no entirely implausible to raise such concerns.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    His tactics have been to further publicize things they rely on while also pissing off community members to point that subversion is less likely. I'd say he's doing opposite of what CIA or FBI would want him to do. Whereas, Tor is actually funded by an organization connected to CIA propaganda groups and is used by military intelligence. One is working for spooks, whether harmlessly or not. It's just not Jake that's the one. Strange the conspiracy theories focus on him instead of Tor.
  - tptacek 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deciplex 10y ago
> It's rarer than most people think that accusations of sexual abuse are falsely raised, but it is still a possibility. Disclaimer: it seems to me the claims are true. That said: I don't think the above observation has a great deal of predictive value in this context, where "this context" is "sexual assault allegations against a public figure". The fact that most sexual assault allegations picked out of all sexual assault allegations happen to be true, does not tell you much about sexual assault allegations against public figures when the ratio of reported sexual assaults against public figures to the number of reported sexual assaults in total, is very, very low. Indeed, every sexual assault allegation against a public figure could be false, and it wouldn't move the needle at all on the likelihood that the typical allegation is true.

hackuser 10y ago

I once was on a committee to craft a sexual assault and harassment policy for a small organization. It was an impossible task: You can't expose others, and especially the alleged victim, to a violent felon; imagine if they struck again! You also can't cost someone their job, residence, or reputation over an unsubstantiated allegation. And a small organization lacks the resources to do a valid investigation, conduct hearings, etc. You absolutely can and should treat the complainant with respect and support; nobody accused them of a crime and they should not be treated with suspicion or doubt.

geofft 10y ago

> Any scenario could be possible, from personal revenge to a smear campaign by an intelligence agency. It's also worth being aware of the possibility that Jacob Appelbaum is himself an agent of an intelligence agency (either a plant, or someone turned informant once they realized they could blackmail him and that a creep is a useful informant), and his behavior is a way to maintain his power and in turn the intelligence agency's. Argument 1: https://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-misogynists-make-great-informants-how-gender-violence-on-the-left-enables-state-violence-in-radical-movements/ https://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-misogynists-... Argument 2: https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f13da4d https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f... "But really, I thought, why would Jake be so defensive about some random [lightning talk] that might have otherwise gone completely unnoticed? If I were a government operative hell-bent on destroying the global hacker community, what would I do differently from what Jake is doing now?" I don't think this is particularly likely over the simpler explanation that he's a non-government-affiliated creep, but if we're going to give credence to "A government agency that hates Tor was behind this," it's worth looking at all the possible ways a government agency might get an advantage out of the situation.

Chris2048 10y ago
While conspiracy theory is a risky proposition, in this case the agencies involved are known for such things. COINTELPRO, prism etc, so it's no entirely implausible to raise such concerns.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  His tactics have been to further publicize things they rely on while also pissing off community members to point that subversion is less likely. I'd say he's doing opposite of what CIA or FBI would want him to do. Whereas, Tor is actually funded by an organization connected to CIA propaganda groups and is used by military intelligence. One is working for spooks, whether harmlessly or not. It's just not Jake that's the one. Strange the conspiracy theories focus on him instead of Tor.
- tptacek 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deciplex 10y ago

> It's rarer than most people think that accusations of sexual abuse are falsely raised, but it is still a possibility. Disclaimer: it seems to me the claims are true. That said: I don't think the above observation has a great deal of predictive value in this context, where "this context" is "sexual assault allegations against a public figure". The fact that most sexual assault allegations picked out of all sexual assault allegations happen to be true, does not tell you much about sexual assault allegations against public figures when the ratio of reported sexual assaults against public figures to the number of reported sexual assaults in total, is very, very low. Indeed, every sexual assault allegation against a public figure could be false, and it wouldn't move the needle at all on the likelihood that the typical allegation is true.