Identity rape and mob mentality
Summary: Allen Herrell, one of the accused attackers in the Kathy Sierra controversy, has written a long email to Doc Searls explaining that his entire online identity has been compromised. If true, and I believe it, because I have known Allen for many years, it appears there have been many more victims here than Ms.
Allen Herrell, one of the accused attackers in the Kathy Sierra controversy, has written a long email to Doc Searls explaining that his entire online identity has been compromised. If true, and I believe it, because I have known Allen for many years, it appears there have been many more victims here than Ms. Sierra.
I am writing this from a new computer, using an email address that will be deleted at the end of this.
I am no longer me. My main machine despite my best efforts has been hacked, my accounts compromised including my email. and has been disconnected from the internet.
How did this happen? When did this happen? shit doc, i don't have a fucking clue. I thought i was pretty sharp. I guess not.
just about every online account that i have has been compromised. Most importantly my digital identity and user/password for typepad and wordpress. I have been doing damage control, for my clients. How the fuck i got to be part of this mess is revolting.
The Kathy Sierra mess is horrific. I am not who ever used my identity and my picture!!
I am sick beyond words over this whole episode. Kathy Sierra may not be on my top 10 list , but nobody deserves this filthy character assaination (sic).
A lynch mob mentality has come over the Blogosphere. Kathy Sierra has ever right to be angry about the messages directed at her, but her allegations appear to have been misdirected and misinformed, because they relied on simplistic analysis of the sites and assumed that appearance and reality were identical. And she's making it worse, writing today:
You're damn right I'm *linking* these folks to these posts. You're wrong about their involvement. The posts and comments were NOT made by--as you said--heinous trolls. Whoever made the posts was a registered member, and they *know* who made the comments -- he was one of their participants. I never said Jeaneane was the one creating the noose picture or comment. I said she was a participant in and "celebrated" and encouraged meankids.org. I believe that when prominent people encourage this kind of behavior, they don't get to wash their hands of it, ethically.
I should be more clear, though, that while *someone* broke the law with the noose photo/comment, I'm definitely NOT suggesting that anyone else did anything legally wrong.
But I think Hugh put it better than I can:
--You might not be the guy raping the cheerleader, but if you're the one standing by saying, "go go go!" you share some responsibility.--
Not legal, but ethical. I don't believe any of these folks should be able to create these forums, *celebrate* them, send people there, and actively participate... and then claim complete innocence. If you hand someone a loaded gun. and encourage them to shoot...
The rape metaphor applies to everyone involved who had words and images they find deplorable attributed to them. But it is far more important to understand that the rape claimed attributed to them probably didn't happen wasn't their doing in the first place. The gun shoved in Chris Locke, Jeneane Sessums, Frank Paynter and Allen Herrell's hands is as likely to be illusory as not. We need proof, not accusations, just like in the physical world.
Trolls created the impression of a crime and sat back to watch human nature show its worst side. They are still enjoying it.
As Chris Locke explained in his email to me yesterday, he took the offensive postings down "shortly after it appeared." Nevertheless, Bert Bates, Kathy Sierra's Head First Java co-author has commented on this blog, saying "By definition, these 'posts' were made by the author(s) of the site - it IS a small circle of candidates." When you factor in the possibility that accounts were co-opted, according to this definition, anyone who has ever had their email address spoofed is responsible for the content of the messages sent under their name.
As I wrote yesterday, we need to acknowledge that the Blogosphere, such as it is, is just another human place full of people, some of whom are completely sociopathic and sick. Acting as though this place was a friendly little town until yesterday is missing so much of the reality and challenges of transforming media and society.
Let's stop the mock horror at the soiling of a purely imaginary blog utopia and get back to dealing with the reality of this world we live in. Somewhere, someone is responsible for threats made against Kathy Sierra.
Unless it can be proved that the people accused are actually involved, based on solid analysis of the facts, there is no benefit in continuing the witch hunting. Things will get better when we let reason, not raw emotion, take over.
With that, I'll end on the positive idea Allen Herrell concluded with:
I liked being who I was warts and all.
I have over the course of my time online met some of the brightest people that I would never have the abilty to sit across from to break bread or share coffee with from around the world. How wonderful is that.
In 1997 I wrote that I believed that the internet was the most important invention of the human race. I believe it even more today as I write this.
It will probably some time before I attempt to join the great conversation again, but, Please don't let bastards grind you down.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Sounds like someone needs to grow a thicker skin.
Damn kids on both sides!
loaded guns
You said: "The gun shoved in Chris Locke, Jeneane Sessums, Frank Paynter and
Allen Herrell's hands is as likely to be illusory as not. We need proof, not
accusations, just like in the physical world.
Trolls created the impression of a crime and sat back to watch human nature show
its worst side"
A have a couple of issues with that:
1 - I'm no lawyer, but I think I'm quoting this accurately: ""Federal law 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 875 (c) states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure
the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both."
As we've said all along, we don't know who actually made these posts, but the
posts themselves are no illusion or "impression".
2 - We're talking about seasoned internet veterans here. If Allen got spoofed here
then let's consider the context. He was involved in creating these sites, I don't
think it's too much of a stretch to call these sites loaded guns. Now let's say,
theoretically, that he was in fact spoofed. Was it responsible for these guys to
create such sites and then be lazy about their moderation? And then, when their
names are named, after creating a loaded gun and abandoning it, they cry "foul"?
If they don't think they were playing "sharks", are these seasoned veterans really
saying they didn't realize that in creating these sites they'd be swimming with
sharks?
Guilt by edginess?
postings were not the work of the individuals named by Kathy, they are
being falsely accused. Yet, here you are trying to justify continuing to
blame them for simply having decided to publish something that was not
within the bounds of your taste. That's a more dangerous accusation than
you apparently realize as you cite law rather selectively, forgetting that libel
is falsely accusing someone of an act you cannot prove.
I have been on the receiving end of many death threats, most of them
politically motivated rather than sexual in nature, as Kathy endured, but the
same kind of objectification was involved. I was turned into a liberal object
to threaten and plot against. Recognizing that this is not just a problem of
anti-woman hatefulness, though it is is specific, and that it represents a
general feature of human character is important to actually dealing with the
problem as a systemic thing.
<a href = "http://www.ratcliffeblog.com/archives/2005/02/a_right-
wing_hi.html">In a recent situation</a>, I found threads on a public forum
discussing having me killed by someone in the network of people talking
about the idea. I used that evidence to confront and stop the dangerous
fools. In one case I traced the conversation to a specific lawyer, whom I
threatened to report to his bar association if he did not publicly call for a
halt to any discussion of causing harm to or ridiculing me. He learned a
lesson, because it scared him out of the forums where his worst qualities
were encouraged. I didn't have to ruin his life to remediate the problem.
But I didn't publish their names, because as a "seasoned Internet veteran" I
know that most of the identities I was looking at were difficult or
impossible to link to specific people.
Yet you and Kathy persist in hurling accusations and metaphor (rape and
guns) at specific people who you don't know to be directly linked to these
threats. Moreover, when confonted with what appear to be honest
statements of dismay and disgust about the things said in their names or in
association with their names, you find it necessary to call them liars and
justify doing so by citing their guilt by any association with "sharks." I think
you are doing far more harm with this behavior than can be justified by the
good of crying foul about legitimately awful behavior.
The pot calls the kettle black, methinks
The idea that somebody could have their account hacked and a as a result a controversial posting could see the light of day TWICE without the original owner or any of the other invited authors noticing or acting seems farfetched. Is that your opinion as to the sequence of events? Are you really trying to incite the reverse lynch mob based on second-hand knowledge? Do YOU have any proof?
Either way, you're doing a great job... maybe Bert & Kathy will be 'identity raped' (nice sensationalistic term there, btw) too -- would that constitute justice in your eyes?
nicely said mitch
The best possible outcome to such an awful scenario (in ALL regards), would be more serious (and less "emotional") discussion, like Mitch's above.
What Mitch has said here is actually rational (not to mention in accord with the facts as we currently know them). If we're to simply trounce it and ignore it, then doesn't that say that we're actually after something else (fill in your own selfserving blanks here) INSTEAD of some mindful dialogue that addresses the essence of it?
Do we wanna actually address this and accomplish something? Or, is it just good enough to make a lot of bombastic noise (and meanwhile, risk damaging, without sound justification) even others in the process?
I'm saddened that the answer to the above queries hasn't gotten at least a bit clearer in the days since this began.
So strange...
Maybe it's the legal implications but part of me is so angered that no one except Frank had the balls to at least admit (not just by pulling the sites down) that they erred in the fostering/supporting such vile websites.