8 ms·

From the outside it's very difficult to know what's going on here. Maybe Appelbaum is a jerk. Maybe he's carried out sexual harrassment/rape. I don't know. But

by agd 10y ago

From the outside it's very difficult to know what's going on here. Maybe Appelbaum is a jerk. Maybe he's carried out sexual harrassment/rape. I don't know. But these things are not proven by a clearly orchestrated character assassination: aggressive twitter accounts, anonymous testimony, a website which is misleading and attempts to deceive people. These things don't help anyone and only undermine the claims by the alleged victims. Given who Appelbaum is, it's entirely possible that outside actors are also getting involved to exacerbate tensions. In summary: Applebaum has left. TOR can move on. If there are criminal matters, they can be decided in the courts. Witch hunts and character assassinations are not productive.

jordigh 10y ago
> aggressive twitter accounts, There appears to be some false flags in those accounts, as the main site with the rape allegations has claimed that they do not endorse the threats uttered in those accounts.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  Don't endorse? That's first and foremost words -- the website, "TimeToDieJake" and the picture of the guillotine chopping of his penise, that's more real. Their plausible deniability doesn't translate into "confirmed false flags". It can't be confirmed either way, I'd say, since we can't read minds. "endorse" just means "not publically support", which in turn just means "we're not that insane". But you're right, it's AFAIK not entirely right to speak of aggressive twitter accountS, but I for one didn't buy their "we're not related" about TimeToDieJake for one second. Can't prove it, but it'll take you hard proof to convince me otherwise. I agree you can't blame people directly for all of anyone out there does now, I'm sure plenty of people enjoy stirring the pot. But you can blame adults at least partially for the storm they unleashed and the way in which they did it, and how unable they are to even see, much less acknowledge that. Stirring up hatred against someone and then saying you don't endorse hateful messages against them might be useful in a court, but beyond that? To me, generating hatred against Appelbaum was the whole and the sole point of the exercise. I mean, while we're at accepting "this seems plausible" as good enough, then that's a somewhat reasonable assumption I'd say. For me so far the claims of Appelbaum being a super psycho are hearsay, some of it plausible, sure, and nobody coming out for real against it - but I also see manipulation, using others to destroy someone, not wanting to lay it out in the open, and so on. Those are also red flags. And that's not because Appelbaum is playing his narcissist mind games on me, and makes me blame his doings on the victims, that's simply the stuff I see. I see a whole lot of disagreeing with downvotes instead of people using their words, too, and that is also a signal. For people who claim to be against abuse, some people are mighty abusive.
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    I'll just leave this here, you know, for posterity. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11882458 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11882458
Bartweiss 10y ago
There's something deeply alarming here, whatever the nature of the claims against Appelbaum. There's pretty extensive evidence of an attempt to impersonate him here. There's also a lot of stuff that's alarming from a philosophical standpoint for anyone involved with privacy/anonymity - a link to an "ioerrror" (instead of "ioerror") github is a clear attempt to deceive, and it's deeply questionable to do to visitors to the site, independent of any effects on Appelbaum. It's pretty obvious that there's serious character assassination happening here, and it's only going to tar the reputation of everyone involved - alleged victims, Appelbaum, and Tor alike. No matter who you're siding with, this is still an ugly and counterproductive episode.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  There is the issue of troll communities on the internet. People running a campaign to do something or another might not have any other involvement, they could just be in it for the lulz.
- jordigh 10y ago
  > There's pretty extensive evidence of an attempt to impersonate him here. What? Where? Just because of the github account that they chose? The site doesn't say that Jacob Appelbaum wrote any of it. They call themselves a victims' collective: http://jacobappelbaum.net/#faq http://jacobappelbaum.net/#faq I am guessing that they chose to plaster Jacob's face all over it just to make the site about him, and I find it very credible that most victims would want to remain anonymous given the kind of hounding and harassment that they are likely to receive otherwise: How old are you? How much do you weigh? What did you eat that day? Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No, not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink? Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly? What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’ d you do when you got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that? What does this text mean? Who were you texting? When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside? Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring. Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you black out? Did you party at frats? Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, well, we’ll let Brock fill it in.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>by a clearly orchestrated character assassination What about Nick Farr's story? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842301
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I don't think the "character assassination" is meant to be any statement on whether the claims are true. Regardless of that question, there seems to be an attempt to impersonate and misrepresent Appelbaum, an attempt to mislead about that attempt, and a collection of threats and other statements made under false claims of support from the primary complainants. There are two different events here: the claims, which if unproved are certainly credible; and an effort to impersonate and mislead which is troubling no matter how the first issue stands.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  Well, he didn't back up the plagiarism claims he repeats either, mentioned emails "from Jake and important CCC people" without quoting those emails, mentioned notes he didn't even take photos of for some reason, and says nothing about any sexual conduct, or what exactly he said to whom and in what way he was claimed to be the troublemaker. It's not very verbose in many parts I would like it to be more verbose about. For me, that people (I don't know at all) trust Nick Farr (whom I don't know at all) about Appelbaum (whom I don't know at all) being a sociopath is certainly something I wouldn't easily dismiss, but it's also not something I can go by, you know? One thing I notice about the story is how short it is, and that Nick didn't answer my questions to it. That's literally the only interaction I have and it's negative, so there. What I consider a much stronger "signal" is that nobody who knows Jake personally came out saying what a great and prude guy he is, to exaggerate. That I did notice. And even if the claims are true, it's still orchestrated character assassination in a way (even that is putting it mildly, that is, not the full picture, considering the "TimeToDieJake" account and the image with a guillotine) since "rapist, plagiarist, sociopath" is now supposed to be his tagline. Trying to push that in an orchestrated fashion is character assassination, not in the sense of totally fabricating things out of thin air, but certainly in the sense of taking some truth, mixing in a lot of hyperbole and uncertainty and making a huge hammer and a virtual death sentence out of it.
britta 10y ago
You might find this chart interesting for thinking about the uses of discussion outside of courts: https://twitter.com/scriptjunkie1/status/739545814150746113 https://twitter.com/scriptjunkie1/status/739545814150746113
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  Except the sentencing as "rapist, sociopath, plagiarist", seems to already have taken place. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any discussion, but this wasn't just discussion. It was more the presenting of a sentence, and then using the weight of the accusations to stifle discussion rather than engage with it. Even to the point of saying it won't go to court, because of what a vindictive person he is, or because the legal system is so bad that you really should believe the victims, and that's that. And of course, it's also his fault that there is no substantiation of the plagiarism claims, they're just a bonus anyway, something you're supposed to take on board with the main course. He's done, that's the "takeaway", and any discussion beyond that was hardly invited, much less responded to in a reasonable manner from what I saw. It may be "more likely than not" that Appelbaum is guilty of some of or all these things, but it's pretty much before all our eyes what has been done with it, and what shoddy arguments have been used to excuse it. Personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with anyone who doesn't mind such a virtual lynch mob and the sophistry that went along with it, how's that for warning your social circles? Everybody throws a pebble, nobody feels like they stoned someone to death. After all, it was "more likely than not". I find that equally repulsive as what Appelbaum is accused of. Once you're fine with holding that weapon, and your friends wielding it as well, once you are fine with a mob because you're in it and think it'll win and nobody will ask questions, that weapon will end up deciding for you who gets shot. And it takes your own humanity, too, bit by bit. It's not a new thing, it's not the first time I saw it, and though it didn't quite catch on as much as the people who tried so very hard probably wanted to, I never saw so many smart people go along with something so obviously wrong as this. And all that in context of accusing him of that, of destroying people by using others? It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Even if he does do that, that doesn't make it okay. Abusing an abuser while saying you're anti-abuse and pro-safe-space is a farce. This is what is at stake, that is, what this has already broken to shit, and what many now are too proud or too immature to acknowledge, much less make any moves to fix: > So stop it. You are creating a world where no one will ever dare to move out of their front door and take up a life of activism, because they can not know if Jake is a sociopath, or a person who is being framed. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851888 ) edit: and even if he is a sociopath, even if you have to warn your friends and circles and so on, that doesn't excuse whatever this was and is.
geofft 10y ago
> If there are criminal matters, they can be decided in the courts. I continue to be baffled why people think this is a reasonable community norm for people who care about Tor. It seems like even if you're very pro-Appelbaum, you'd be worried about governments treating him unfairly like they've supposedly treated Assange unfairly, right? I suspect this is not what you meant, but I can't shake the feeling that the subtext here (you're not the only person who's said something like this) is that sexual assault claims should not be pursued anywhere, neither in court nor in the community. And that seems definitely unproductive.
s_kilk 10y ago
Let's Occams Razor this: Which is more likely? - Applebaum is an abuser, as widely reported by multiple independent witnesses - Various three-letter-agencies are orchestrating a conspiracy to defame him
- mtgx 10y ago
  > Applebaum is an abuser, as widely reported by multiple independent witnesses And who are those witnesses? "Anonymous" witnesses don't count. If Appelbaum has done harm to you, whether you're a woman or man, come out and say it. You can't just say "we heard from anonymous sources that Obama raped someone" and expect to be taken seriously. Also, you could use your logic to say: "Who is right here? Thousands of government employees who say they haven't broken the law and haven't done mass surveillance, or this just one high-school dropout guy who fled to Russia?" (obviously talking about Snowden here). I don't know if that's how Occam's Razor is supposed to work, but if that's how it works, then it's clearly a pretty flawed theory, that at best can be used as a "guideline" not as as hard rule.
  - daxorid 10y ago
    The implication of the pro-conspiracy crowd is that Andrea, Meredith, and Nick are all working for the Feds. Is this really the conclusion you're expecting us to reach?
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    >I don't know if that's how Occam's Razor is supposed to work, but if that's how it works, then it's clearly a pretty flawed theory, that at best can be used as a "guideline" not as as hard rule. That's all Occam's Razor is, really: A rule of thumb to help decide where to look next.
- comboy 10y ago
  It could be a bit of both.
- agd 10y ago
  You're attacking a strawman here. I (as stated in my post) don't know whether he is an abuser or not. I was only commenting on how I don't think the orchestrated campaign mentioned is helpful to anyone (including the alleged victims). I also didn't say that three letter agencies are orchestrating anything. I raised the possibility that outside actors might try and exacerbate the situation (on both sides). This is not tin-foil thinking but very possible given the existence of Snowden documents describing these kinds of tactics.[1] [1] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
Fricken 10y ago
I would argue that if your goal is to destroy Jacob Applebaum's public persona, then smear campaigns and character assassinations are productive. Even if this were to make it to court, and Applebaum was found innocent on all charges, the damage has been done.
knowtheory 10y ago
> anonymous testimony Okay then, how about these: https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f13da4d https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f... https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739937558533021697 https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739937558533021697 And just to make sure this tweet isn't missed... https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739939420183400449 https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739939420183400449 Quinn Norton: > I do hope Jake has enough sense that trying to accuse me of being part of a vast gov conspiracy to take him down would catch in his throat.
- randomnewbie 10y ago
  These are testimonies about him being an ass (bad enough for some consequences). Accusations of sexual mistreatment are still anonymous. I find that distinction important.
nikcub 10y ago
This is no longer Anonymous v Appelbaum - there are now, by my last count, at least six people on the record: Tor developer Andrea Shepard to Wired[0]. Shepard again, Emerson Tan and Meridith Patterson to Gizmodo[1]. Daily Dot spoke to four witnesses, adding Tor developer Alison Macrina to the list of those on the record[2]. Nick Farr[3] and Leigh Honeywell[4] That is without counting the numerous people who have corroborated various claims informally on Twitter or elsewhere, or statements such as those from cDc who booted him out[5] [0] https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-resigns-amid-sex-abuse-claims/ https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-... [1] http://gizmodo.com/eyewitnesses-recount-tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-s-un-1781048751 http://gizmodo.com/eyewitnesses-recount-tor-developer-jacob-... [2] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/jacob-appelbaum-tor-project-suspension-sexual-misconduct-victims/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/jacob-appelbaum-tor-project... [3] https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f13da4d https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f... [4] https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ [5] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2853643-Jacob-Appelbaum-CULT-of-the-DEAD-COW-Statement.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2853643-Jacob-Appelb...
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  [6] http://gizmodo.com/jacob-appelbaum-has-allegedly-engaged-in-sexual-miscond-1781314215 http://gizmodo.com/jacob-appelbaum-has-allegedly-engaged-in-...
kafkaesq 10y ago
In summary: Applebaum has left. TOR can move on. If there are criminal matters, they can be decided in the courts. That's not all there is to it. There's also the valid issue (entirely outside the purview of criminal law) as to whether a serial harasser should be welcomed (and allowed to keynote, no less) at major technical conferences, as if nothing happened -- despite increasingly convincing (and largely no longer anonymous) testimony to the effect that his presence would be highly destructive. Witch hunts and character assassinations are not productive. You see witch hunts and character assassination. Others (like Quinn Norton) see what increasingly appears to be an epicly sad story of people not just "offended", but deeply hurt, shamed, and silenced -- who (thankfully) have now found the courage to come out and speak what they know to be the truth about what they experienced.

by agd 10y ago

jordigh 10y ago

> aggressive twitter accounts, There appears to be some false flags in those accounts, as the main site with the rape allegations has claimed that they do not endorse the threats uttered in those accounts.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
Don't endorse? That's first and foremost words -- the website, "TimeToDieJake" and the picture of the guillotine chopping of his penise, that's more real. Their plausible deniability doesn't translate into "confirmed false flags". It can't be confirmed either way, I'd say, since we can't read minds. "endorse" just means "not publically support", which in turn just means "we're not that insane". But you're right, it's AFAIK not entirely right to speak of aggressive twitter accountS, but I for one didn't buy their "we're not related" about TimeToDieJake for one second. Can't prove it, but it'll take you hard proof to convince me otherwise. I agree you can't blame people directly for all of anyone out there does now, I'm sure plenty of people enjoy stirring the pot. But you can blame adults at least partially for the storm they unleashed and the way in which they did it, and how unable they are to even see, much less acknowledge that. Stirring up hatred against someone and then saying you don't endorse hateful messages against them might be useful in a court, but beyond that? To me, generating hatred against Appelbaum was the whole and the sole point of the exercise. I mean, while we're at accepting "this seems plausible" as good enough, then that's a somewhat reasonable assumption I'd say. For me so far the claims of Appelbaum being a super psycho are hearsay, some of it plausible, sure, and nobody coming out for real against it - but I also see manipulation, using others to destroy someone, not wanting to lay it out in the open, and so on. Those are also red flags. And that's not because Appelbaum is playing his narcissist mind games on me, and makes me blame his doings on the victims, that's simply the stuff I see. I see a whole lot of disagreeing with downvotes instead of people using their words, too, and that is also a signal. For people who claim to be against abuse, some people are mighty abusive.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  I'll just leave this here, you know, for posterity. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11882458 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11882458

Bartweiss 10y ago

There's something deeply alarming here, whatever the nature of the claims against Appelbaum. There's pretty extensive evidence of an attempt to impersonate him here. There's also a lot of stuff that's alarming from a philosophical standpoint for anyone involved with privacy/anonymity - a link to an "ioerrror" (instead of "ioerror") github is a clear attempt to deceive, and it's deeply questionable to do to visitors to the site, independent of any effects on Appelbaum. It's pretty obvious that there's serious character assassination happening here, and it's only going to tar the reputation of everyone involved - alleged victims, Appelbaum, and Tor alike. No matter who you're siding with, this is still an ugly and counterproductive episode.

maxerickson 10y ago
There is the issue of troll communities on the internet. People running a campaign to do something or another might not have any other involvement, they could just be in it for the lulz.
jordigh 10y ago
> There's pretty extensive evidence of an attempt to impersonate him here. What? Where? Just because of the github account that they chose? The site doesn't say that Jacob Appelbaum wrote any of it. They call themselves a victims' collective: http://jacobappelbaum.net/#faq http://jacobappelbaum.net/#faq I am guessing that they chose to plaster Jacob's face all over it just to make the site about him, and I find it very credible that most victims would want to remain anonymous given the kind of hounding and harassment that they are likely to receive otherwise: How old are you? How much do you weigh? What did you eat that day? Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No, not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink? Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly? What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’ d you do when you got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that? What does this text mean? Who were you texting? When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside? Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring. Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you black out? Did you party at frats? Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, well, we’ll let Brock fill it in.

Kristine1975 10y ago

>by a clearly orchestrated character assassination What about Nick Farr's story? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842301

Bartweiss 10y ago
I don't think the "character assassination" is meant to be any statement on whether the claims are true. Regardless of that question, there seems to be an attempt to impersonate and misrepresent Appelbaum, an attempt to mislead about that attempt, and a collection of threats and other statements made under false claims of support from the primary complainants. There are two different events here: the claims, which if unproved are certainly credible; and an effort to impersonate and mislead which is troubling no matter how the first issue stands.
PavlovsCat 10y ago
Well, he didn't back up the plagiarism claims he repeats either, mentioned emails "from Jake and important CCC people" without quoting those emails, mentioned notes he didn't even take photos of for some reason, and says nothing about any sexual conduct, or what exactly he said to whom and in what way he was claimed to be the troublemaker. It's not very verbose in many parts I would like it to be more verbose about. For me, that people (I don't know at all) trust Nick Farr (whom I don't know at all) about Appelbaum (whom I don't know at all) being a sociopath is certainly something I wouldn't easily dismiss, but it's also not something I can go by, you know? One thing I notice about the story is how short it is, and that Nick didn't answer my questions to it. That's literally the only interaction I have and it's negative, so there. What I consider a much stronger "signal" is that nobody who knows Jake personally came out saying what a great and prude guy he is, to exaggerate. That I did notice. And even if the claims are true, it's still orchestrated character assassination in a way (even that is putting it mildly, that is, not the full picture, considering the "TimeToDieJake" account and the image with a guillotine) since "rapist, plagiarist, sociopath" is now supposed to be his tagline. Trying to push that in an orchestrated fashion is character assassination, not in the sense of totally fabricating things out of thin air, but certainly in the sense of taking some truth, mixing in a lot of hyperbole and uncertainty and making a huge hammer and a virtual death sentence out of it.

britta 10y ago

You might find this chart interesting for thinking about the uses of discussion outside of courts: https://twitter.com/scriptjunkie1/status/739545814150746113 https://twitter.com/scriptjunkie1/status/739545814150746113

PavlovsCat 10y ago
Except the sentencing as "rapist, sociopath, plagiarist", seems to already have taken place. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any discussion, but this wasn't just discussion. It was more the presenting of a sentence, and then using the weight of the accusations to stifle discussion rather than engage with it. Even to the point of saying it won't go to court, because of what a vindictive person he is, or because the legal system is so bad that you really should believe the victims, and that's that. And of course, it's also his fault that there is no substantiation of the plagiarism claims, they're just a bonus anyway, something you're supposed to take on board with the main course. He's done, that's the "takeaway", and any discussion beyond that was hardly invited, much less responded to in a reasonable manner from what I saw. It may be "more likely than not" that Appelbaum is guilty of some of or all these things, but it's pretty much before all our eyes what has been done with it, and what shoddy arguments have been used to excuse it. Personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with anyone who doesn't mind such a virtual lynch mob and the sophistry that went along with it, how's that for warning your social circles? Everybody throws a pebble, nobody feels like they stoned someone to death. After all, it was "more likely than not". I find that equally repulsive as what Appelbaum is accused of. Once you're fine with holding that weapon, and your friends wielding it as well, once you are fine with a mob because you're in it and think it'll win and nobody will ask questions, that weapon will end up deciding for you who gets shot. And it takes your own humanity, too, bit by bit. It's not a new thing, it's not the first time I saw it, and though it didn't quite catch on as much as the people who tried so very hard probably wanted to, I never saw so many smart people go along with something so obviously wrong as this. And all that in context of accusing him of that, of destroying people by using others? It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Even if he does do that, that doesn't make it okay. Abusing an abuser while saying you're anti-abuse and pro-safe-space is a farce. This is what is at stake, that is, what this has already broken to shit, and what many now are too proud or too immature to acknowledge, much less make any moves to fix: > So stop it. You are creating a world where no one will ever dare to move out of their front door and take up a life of activism, because they can not know if Jake is a sociopath, or a person who is being framed. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851888 ) edit: and even if he is a sociopath, even if you have to warn your friends and circles and so on, that doesn't excuse whatever this was and is.

geofft 10y ago

> If there are criminal matters, they can be decided in the courts. I continue to be baffled why people think this is a reasonable community norm for people who care about Tor. It seems like even if you're very pro-Appelbaum, you'd be worried about governments treating him unfairly like they've supposedly treated Assange unfairly, right? I suspect this is not what you meant, but I can't shake the feeling that the subtext here (you're not the only person who's said something like this) is that sexual assault claims should not be pursued anywhere, neither in court nor in the community. And that seems definitely unproductive.

s_kilk 10y ago

Let's Occams Razor this: Which is more likely? - Applebaum is an abuser, as widely reported by multiple independent witnesses - Various three-letter-agencies are orchestrating a conspiracy to defame him

mtgx 10y ago
> Applebaum is an abuser, as widely reported by multiple independent witnesses And who are those witnesses? "Anonymous" witnesses don't count. If Appelbaum has done harm to you, whether you're a woman or man, come out and say it. You can't just say "we heard from anonymous sources that Obama raped someone" and expect to be taken seriously. Also, you could use your logic to say: "Who is right here? Thousands of government employees who say they haven't broken the law and haven't done mass surveillance, or this just one high-school dropout guy who fled to Russia?" (obviously talking about Snowden here). I don't know if that's how Occam's Razor is supposed to work, but if that's how it works, then it's clearly a pretty flawed theory, that at best can be used as a "guideline" not as as hard rule.
- daxorid 10y ago
  The implication of the pro-conspiracy crowd is that Andrea, Meredith, and Nick are all working for the Feds. Is this really the conclusion you're expecting us to reach?
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  >I don't know if that's how Occam's Razor is supposed to work, but if that's how it works, then it's clearly a pretty flawed theory, that at best can be used as a "guideline" not as as hard rule. That's all Occam's Razor is, really: A rule of thumb to help decide where to look next.
comboy 10y ago
It could be a bit of both.
agd 10y ago
You're attacking a strawman here. I (as stated in my post) don't know whether he is an abuser or not. I was only commenting on how I don't think the orchestrated campaign mentioned is helpful to anyone (including the alleged victims). I also didn't say that three letter agencies are orchestrating anything. I raised the possibility that outside actors might try and exacerbate the situation (on both sides). This is not tin-foil thinking but very possible given the existence of Snowden documents describing these kinds of tactics.[1] [1] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

Fricken 10y ago

I would argue that if your goal is to destroy Jacob Applebaum's public persona, then smear campaigns and character assassinations are productive. Even if this were to make it to court, and Applebaum was found innocent on all charges, the damage has been done.

knowtheory 10y ago

> anonymous testimony Okay then, how about these: https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f13da4d https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f... https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739937558533021697 https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739937558533021697 And just to make sure this tweet isn't missed... https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739939420183400449 https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739939420183400449 Quinn Norton: > I do hope Jake has enough sense that trying to accuse me of being part of a vast gov conspiracy to take him down would catch in his throat.

randomnewbie 10y ago
These are testimonies about him being an ass (bad enough for some consequences). Accusations of sexual mistreatment are still anonymous. I find that distinction important.

nikcub 10y ago

This is no longer Anonymous v Appelbaum - there are now, by my last count, at least six people on the record: Tor developer Andrea Shepard to Wired[0]. Shepard again, Emerson Tan and Meridith Patterson to Gizmodo[1]. Daily Dot spoke to four witnesses, adding Tor developer Alison Macrina to the list of those on the record[2]. Nick Farr[3] and Leigh Honeywell[4] That is without counting the numerous people who have corroborated various claims informally on Twitter or elsewhere, or statements such as those from cDc who booted him out[5] [0] https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-resigns-amid-sex-abuse-claims/ https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-... [1] http://gizmodo.com/eyewitnesses-recount-tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-s-un-1781048751 http://gizmodo.com/eyewitnesses-recount-tor-developer-jacob-... [2] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/jacob-appelbaum-tor-project-suspension-sexual-misconduct-victims/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/jacob-appelbaum-tor-project... [3] https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f13da4d https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-nickf4rr-35c32f... [4] https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ [5] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2853643-Jacob-Appelbaum-CULT-of-the-DEAD-COW-Statement.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2853643-Jacob-Appelb...

alistproducer2 10y ago
[6] http://gizmodo.com/jacob-appelbaum-has-allegedly-engaged-in-sexual-miscond-1781314215 http://gizmodo.com/jacob-appelbaum-has-allegedly-engaged-in-...

kafkaesq 10y ago

In summary: Applebaum has left. TOR can move on. If there are criminal matters, they can be decided in the courts. That's not all there is to it. There's also the valid issue (entirely outside the purview of criminal law) as to whether a serial harasser should be welcomed (and allowed to keynote, no less) at major technical conferences, as if nothing happened -- despite increasingly convincing (and largely no longer anonymous) testimony to the effect that his presence would be highly destructive. Witch hunts and character assassinations are not productive. You see witch hunts and character assassination. Others (like Quinn Norton) see what increasingly appears to be an epicly sad story of people not just "offended", but deeply hurt, shamed, and silenced -- who (thankfully) have now found the courage to come out and speak what they know to be the truth about what they experienced.