4 ms·

Given this thread, I think these extra-legal accusations are part of the ethical concerns the OP had with the new Tor leadership. They started a witch hunt agai

Given this thread, I think these extra-legal accusations are part of the ethical concerns the OP had with the new Tor leadership. They started a witch hunt against Applebaum.

sp332 10y ago
You don't need legal action to exclude someone from a community. Many people in the community are anarchists of various kinds, and some have been targeted by governments, including Jake himself. They would really rather not involve the state (any state). Here is what one of the victims wants: https://medium.com/@flexlibris/theres-really-no-such-thing-as-the-voiceless-92b3fa45134d#c6e8 https://medium.com/@flexlibris/theres-really-no-such-thing-a... It's not a witch hunt.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  That definitely reads like a witch hunt as does this: http://jacobappelbaum.net/ http://jacobappelbaum.net/ Anarchist tendencies aside, I wouldn't be comfortable working with people who initiated this type of vigilante justice. Doesn't sound like Lucky Green was either.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  Shava Nerad has a particularly good explanation of the situation: https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/jacob-appelbaum-tor-developer-and-wikileaks-staffer-resigns-amid-sex-abuse-claims/79189/41 https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/jacob-appelbaum-tor-developer-a... https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/jacob-appelbaum-tor-developer-and-wikileaks-staffer-resigns-amid-sex-abuse-claims/79189/87 https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/jacob-appelbaum-tor-developer-a... (or all "shava23" posts in that thread) > It's not a witch hunt. This is the very definition of a witch hunt. Vague accusations were made to provoke emotional us-vs-them tribalism. The problem with that is not only how it unfairly pre-judges the accused; it also obscures and confuses any legitimate accusations. Not wanting to involve a state is fine, and very understandable when the situation involves organizations that the state considers a threat. However, not involving a state doesn't mean anything-goes anarchy is the solution either. An alternative system should have been used, if the goal was justice instead of vengeance and witch hunts. The accused needs to be able to face their accuser and rebut the accusations. > targeted by governments, including Jake himself Regardless of everything else, that alone should be enough of a reason to be particularly careful with any accusations and follow a formal judicial process (which may not involve a state) with pedantic accuracy. > what one of the victims wants There is a lot of talk about justice and creating new systems to handle social problems. Unless I'm missing something, there is zero discussion about verifying the accusation. Nobody likes the state judicial system, but there's a reason it exists. Without some method of fairly handling accusations, we are left without closure and a divided community filled with suspicion and mistrust. "We have found our Kobiyashi-Maru." edit: I'll interpret multiple unexplained down votes as yet more evidence of a witch hunt. Hint: I haven't take a position on anybody's guilt or innocence.
  - sp332 10y ago
    It's not a witch hunt because it's not looking to destroy someone. The end goal is reconciliation, not punishment. In fact the blog post doesn't advocate for any punishment at all. It's hardly us-vs-them when she says that Jake's friends should form a support group for him! Obviously the victims want him kept away from conferences for a time, which is only prudent given the nature of the accusations. It's a little more than "administrative leave pending investigation" but not by much. Here's another account, followed by a more detailed description of the process the victims are asking for and how that's gone so far. https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-trees.html https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-trees.... Again, no "vengeance" or punishment.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > It's not a witch hunt because it's not looking to destroy someone. Is this some sort of a joke? Maybe some people wanted a more limited result, but that isn't what happened. Did you miss the twitter account named @TimeToDieJake? (now renamed to @VictimsOfJake) How, exactly, is publicly shaming someone and calling for them to be excommunicated from their community anything other than "looking to destroy someone"? > doesn't advocate for any punishment Jake must be excluded from all community activities as a precondition for healing. I would describe that as not only advocating for a very specific punishment, but demanding that the punishment must happen. Do you want to pretend that being excluded from your community isn't a punishment? Really? > It's hardly us-vs-them Yes, it is, until a formal process occurs where the accusation and rebuttal are heard and an independent judgment finds the accusation is true. Again, you're completely ignoring the process of verifying the accusation. > Obviously the victims want him kept away from conferences for a time That's fine as a temporary measure until a form judicial process either confirms the accusation or finds that the accused is innocent. > Again, no "vengeance" or punishment. You must have read another document, as your new link repeats several items and advocates for punishment in much stronger language. -- Again, i don't know what happened and make no claims about the validity of the accusations. I'm trying to point out that this kind of witch hunt based on pre-judging someone from only an accusation should terrify you. Guilty until proven innocent is a dangerous precedent to set... even if the accused really deserves it. You might try reading the links I provided previously. Even if Jake did the terrible things he's accused of, ignoring the principles of justice and simply judging him guilty sets a precedent where you might be judge guilty on a mere accusation in the future.

Given this thread, I think these extra-legal accusations are part of the ethical concerns the OP had with the new Tor leadership. They started a witch hunt against Applebaum.

sp332 10y ago

You don't need legal action to exclude someone from a community. Many people in the community are anarchists of various kinds, and some have been targeted by governments, including Jake himself. They would really rather not involve the state (any state). Here is what one of the victims wants: https://medium.com/@flexlibris/theres-really-no-such-thing-as-the-voiceless-92b3fa45134d#c6e8 https://medium.com/@flexlibris/theres-really-no-such-thing-a... It's not a witch hunt.

exstudent2 10y ago
That definitely reads like a witch hunt as does this: http://jacobappelbaum.net/ http://jacobappelbaum.net/ Anarchist tendencies aside, I wouldn't be comfortable working with people who initiated this type of vigilante justice. Doesn't sound like Lucky Green was either.
pdkl95 10y ago
Shava Nerad has a particularly good explanation of the situation: https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/jacob-appelbaum-tor-developer-and-wikileaks-staffer-resigns-amid-sex-abuse-claims/79189/41 https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/jacob-appelbaum-tor-developer-a... https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/jacob-appelbaum-tor-developer-and-wikileaks-staffer-resigns-amid-sex-abuse-claims/79189/87 https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/jacob-appelbaum-tor-developer-a... (or all "shava23" posts in that thread) > It's not a witch hunt. This is the very definition of a witch hunt. Vague accusations were made to provoke emotional us-vs-them tribalism. The problem with that is not only how it unfairly pre-judges the accused; it also obscures and confuses any legitimate accusations. Not wanting to involve a state is fine, and very understandable when the situation involves organizations that the state considers a threat. However, not involving a state doesn't mean anything-goes anarchy is the solution either. An alternative system should have been used, if the goal was justice instead of vengeance and witch hunts. The accused needs to be able to face their accuser and rebut the accusations. > targeted by governments, including Jake himself Regardless of everything else, that alone should be enough of a reason to be particularly careful with any accusations and follow a formal judicial process (which may not involve a state) with pedantic accuracy. > what one of the victims wants There is a lot of talk about justice and creating new systems to handle social problems. Unless I'm missing something, there is zero discussion about verifying the accusation. Nobody likes the state judicial system, but there's a reason it exists. Without some method of fairly handling accusations, we are left without closure and a divided community filled with suspicion and mistrust. "We have found our Kobiyashi-Maru." edit: I'll interpret multiple unexplained down votes as yet more evidence of a witch hunt. Hint: I haven't take a position on anybody's guilt or innocence.
- sp332 10y ago
  It's not a witch hunt because it's not looking to destroy someone. The end goal is reconciliation, not punishment. In fact the blog post doesn't advocate for any punishment at all. It's hardly us-vs-them when she says that Jake's friends should form a support group for him! Obviously the victims want him kept away from conferences for a time, which is only prudent given the nature of the accusations. It's a little more than "administrative leave pending investigation" but not by much. Here's another account, followed by a more detailed description of the process the victims are asking for and how that's gone so far. https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-trees.html https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-trees.... Again, no "vengeance" or punishment.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > It's not a witch hunt because it's not looking to destroy someone. Is this some sort of a joke? Maybe some people wanted a more limited result, but that isn't what happened. Did you miss the twitter account named @TimeToDieJake? (now renamed to @VictimsOfJake) How, exactly, is publicly shaming someone and calling for them to be excommunicated from their community anything other than "looking to destroy someone"? > doesn't advocate for any punishment Jake must be excluded from all community activities as a precondition for healing. I would describe that as not only advocating for a very specific punishment, but demanding that the punishment must happen. Do you want to pretend that being excluded from your community isn't a punishment? Really? > It's hardly us-vs-them Yes, it is, until a formal process occurs where the accusation and rebuttal are heard and an independent judgment finds the accusation is true. Again, you're completely ignoring the process of verifying the accusation. > Obviously the victims want him kept away from conferences for a time That's fine as a temporary measure until a form judicial process either confirms the accusation or finds that the accused is innocent. > Again, no "vengeance" or punishment. You must have read another document, as your new link repeats several items and advocates for punishment in much stronger language. -- Again, i don't know what happened and make no claims about the validity of the accusations. I'm trying to point out that this kind of witch hunt based on pre-judging someone from only an accusation should terrify you. Guilty until proven innocent is a dangerous precedent to set... even if the accused really deserves it. You might try reading the links I provided previously. Even if Jake did the terrible things he's accused of, ignoring the principles of justice and simply judging him guilty sets a precedent where you might be judge guilty on a mere accusation in the future.