This afternoon, the blog passed 12,000,000 all-time hits. While still smaller than some of other sites in the top ten legal blogs, we just passed 11,000,000 not long ago and we have continued to grow. I am very proud of our community and our attempt to offer a place for civil and responsible conversation. I encourage our regulars and visitors to continue to avoid the personal attacks and name calling common elsewhere on the Internet.
The continued growth of the site shows that our approach to blogging resonates with a good number of people. I continue to be concerned in reading comments that take personal shots and use insulting language. I hope that the recent debate over civility in legal blogging will reaffirm the need of our regulars to avoid insults and personal jabs. If you do not like a person’s take on a story, there is no need to characterize the writer or the writer’s motivations. Let’s deal with the ideas and leave the ad hominem attacks to other sites.
Thanks again for making the site such a great success.
Here are the list of countries represented by viewers and commentators on the blog with the first being obviously the most prevalent:
Country Views
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Germany
Sweden
France
Australia
India
Philippines
Ireland
Singapore
Jonathan Turley
anon:
The last time I posted as a guest blogger, I inadvertently published it before I had completed anything other than the title. And although I deleted and started over in less than a minute, it was up long enough for an alert Roland Darby to observe that he had finally seen a post he liked and understood. You’ll also notice that my guest blogs never have any pictures. It’s not because I don’t like them; I just haven’t yet figured out how to add them without risking disaster. Although most people are probably not as technically klutzy as I am, this is not a computer geek site and mistakes are nothing more than that.
Everyone I have encountered on this site (almost) is extremely well-meaning and tolerant. No one desires to expose anyone’s identity or subject anyone to cruel humiliation. Not only do I not understand what it is you’re looking for, I don’t understand why. What has been disclosed that you regard as an invasion of privacy? I’m completely missing the point.
Mike S,
It’s a side topic, and since you are not threatening to sue me yet, of not much importance, and hopefully will remain so between us, but early on, you had problems with my using the pseudonym anon.
As for the misogyny, I can only say that there is nothing misogynistic in what I write that is not a parody of misandric feminist cant.
Mike (intentionally not using a last name since being associated with Mike S is a good thing, in my opinion 😉 ),
Thanks. I find the question of at what point unfounded anonymous accusations cross the line interesting, but personally being the target of lies and smears gets old quickly.
rafflaw,
Honestly,
I think it’s time for you, as a member of the community, to ask Dr. Kesseler to delete his database and release his code.
I think it’s time for Professor Turley to publically tell Dr. Kesseler he does not have Professor Turley’s permission to run his code and build his database against this blog.
A very wise suggestion, raff.
Time to move on anon?
anon,
If you truly don’t wish to become party to a lawsuit, I suggest that you stop telling lies about me.
To just address one of your most recent lies:
Mike Spindell was not a guest blogger when this occurred, thus there is no conflict between the statement that no guest bloggers were involved and Mike’s involvement.
I’m enjoying watching you try to explain what happened to Woosty. Not only has she been here far longer than you (and understands that the idea of Slartibartfast and Buddha is Laughing being the same person is ludicrous, for instance), but it’s good to get your story regarding the origins of your lies on the record (if there ever needs to be a record). Did it ever occur to you that one of the consequences of what I’ve done is that I have every single comment on this blog in a searchable data structure? You yourself said that I’m the only one who really knows what went on–do you understand that this means that if everything I’ve said is true then I have the ability to document all of it? (code, email, blog posts) You might not have known that your accusations were lies at first (well, except for the ones you made up out of whole cloth), but I can show that I’ve been nothing but open and honest at every turn. Here’s another good example of the kind of reasoning skills you’ve been demonstrating…
By the way Mike A,
I absolutely appreciate your commenting and your point of view.
Mike A, you’re right, and you’re wrong.
I appreciate and agree with 97% of both paragraphs.
Here’s where I disagree with the second paragraph.
I have posted here pseudonymously for about a year, always using the same “anon”. From early on, the other Mike and others had problems with my using this pseudonym.
I had my reasons for posting anonymously, and sadly, I still do.
Along comes Kevin who for whatever reason tries to attack that basic pseudonymity.
When I point out that this violates the community norms of the blog, of WordPress, of the security industry, and especially that of a civil libertarian that defends free speech, I am attacked. I am attacked personally. I am smeared (by the other Mike).
And you come along, and frankly I agree with most of it, saying it’s time to say who I am.
But what that comes down to is this:
This guy that wanted anonymity came to a blog about civil liberties and posted pseudonymously, when a commenter attacked the blog and tried to violate that, when the guy that wanted anonymity pointed it out in numerous links (as wordpress ticket complaints and internet postings from other lawyers), he was told by Mike A, that to defend this, he would have to relinquish his pseudonymity.
Somewhere along the line, that makes no sense to me.
Now, have I made unfounded accusations against Kevin? I have no idea!
Something happened here. It is hard to know what or who to believe.
I think what happened here is serious. I think I have given reasonable suggestions to Dr. Kesseler to describe in a paper precisely what he did and why it is such a problem. And I believe I have very politely suggested to Professor Turley early on that a statement of some sort would be appreciated.
I have asked Kevin to release his code. And to delete his database. He has refused to do either, and he has even, iirc made recent statements about updating his database.
Now you say that common decency is such that I, as the person making accusations against Kevin should not do so from behind anonymity.
I can’t really disagree with that. Except this. To me, the same common decency is that Kevin, having attacked the anonymity of the blog, should accept the logical consequence of releasing his code and deleting his database and promising to never use it again.
If Kevin is going to keep coming to this blog at the same time that he maintains a database and code to attack anonymity of the commenters, then I do not think that common decency is such that comments about Kevin’s behavior is out of bounds for anyone, even the anonymous, or especially the anonymous commenters that his attacks would target.
Some people in this society have tenure, or wealth, or have lost it all, or have enormous courage and so are in a good position to be public with all. The rest of us need anonymity.
Common decency be damned, if the only way to protest is to remove anonymity from those that need it, then common decency and anonymity have enormous conflicts with each other.
“From early on, the other Mike and others had problems with my using this pseudonym.”
Anon,
Once again as I stated above I don’t have a problem with your anonymity, it is your misogyny that bothers me.
Mike Spindell Wrote:
“The Professor was very kind in not revealing that I was the guest blogger responsible for the glitch.”
You sir, are an Honorable Man: Confident, and Honest. Not to mention having strength of character.
“You sir, are an Honorable Man:”
Darren,
Thank you. I’ve been enjoying your contributions to the blog and the fact that you don’t confuse me with that despicable Mike Appleton 🙂
anon: I have been following this thread in a futile effort to ascertain the point, and would not have become involved until you started rather casually tossing the word “Mike” around. There are two “Mikes” who regularly comment here. I am one and Mike Spindell is the other. Neither of us post anonymously. Heck, if you checked, you could get me on the telephone in less than two minutes. So don’t confuse me with that slanderous Spindell guy in the minds of readers.
But I do have a serious point. I choose not to post anonymously because I am self-employed and am old enough to already have offended anyone who cares. I try to respect the anonymity of those who choose it because I recognize that people can have a variety of reasons for not wishing to attach their names to their views, but I am much less tolerant of that privacy when anonymous posters make serious allegations against others, regardless of whether or not there may be substance to the allegations. At some point, it is simply unfair to make accusations without disclosing one’s identity. And I believe we have reached that point in this thread. Therefore, I suggest that if you are intent on pursuing a discussion of alleged wrongdoing on the part of another, common decency requires that you identify yourself so that your seriousness and your motives are openly and honestly disclosed. If you lack the courage to do that, you should not be surprised that your statements are regarded with an equal lack of respect.
“All I’ve said throughout is this is a privacy violation, and it’s been handled terribly here, and I am not inclined to take Dr. Kesseler’s word on this, nor do I have access to the logs or the participants that would bring the truth out.”
Your opinion is just that – your opinion – which is ill-informed and irrelevant. The bottom line is people with access to salient information determined nothing had been done in violation of blog policy – a policy I might add you have no say over formulating or enforcing. Anyone who reads this blog can read Kesseler’s description of his method and it clearly states no IP or email information was used in his process. Further proof of this was provided out of blog and to the satisfaction of the blog owner. Upon this, a determination was made. That you disagree with the finding of the facts and the determination made thereon is irrelevant. Your participation here is not compulsory. Or is it? As a question of motivation of your persistent attacks on both the forum and its contributors. You wouldn’t be the first paid troll to attack. I’m sure you wouldn’t be the last.
Again, if you don’t like the policies here?
You are free to go elsewhere.
Have at it Sport.
“Dr. Slarti, anon might not realize it, but if you wished to pursue a tort claim for damages to your good name and reputation as an ethical software designer, there is something called ‘Discovery.’ As you probably know, an ISP is required to respond to a court order for production of records. When one wishes to keep one’s identity anonymous, it is not a good idea to raise one’s profile to the point where somebody might get serious about legal action. All of a sudden, names and addresses might become part of public documents.
Not being a lawyer, I am not sure of the details, but have been hanging around State and Federal courthouses for the past three dozen years, and have some sense of how things work. I am certain one of the lawyers here will be quick to correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions.”
That’s a nice threat OS, if I could find some pro-bono lawyers at the end of that, we’d probably end up figuring out who Otteray Scribe is as well, since there has clearly been a problem of sockpuppetry hear and we just can’t be sure who is who.
It would be interesting to see Kevin defend his behavior as an ethical software designer, though admittedly more interesting if I was not a party to that lawsuit.
It’s really hard to know what’s going on Woosty, since the only person who really knows is Dr. Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D and he is disingenuous and the privacy invader.
I had the impression from reading others here that yes, BIL was Slarti, but that may not be accurate.
So much of this is fuzzy because it is told to us via comments, and then behind the scenes to a select few with email — it’s why it’s so hard to know just what the hell to believe.’
Here http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/25/second-amendment-boogey-man/#comment-272020
Kevin writes: “At the time I outed you as DeepCover7, I was regularly providing alias dictionaries to Mike and Buddha using an earlier version of this software.”
So yes, that could be him saying he’s not Buddha, but at the same time that would seem to contradict the various claims that Kevin was acting on his own.
He was clearly working in conjunction with, MIKE SPINDELL, GUEST BLOGGER, and apparently Buddha, a different person.
It’s funny, because Gene and OS disclaim all knowledge of what actually happened since they say Kevin acted completely on his own, and yet, though Kevin admits violating the privacy in this way, they also say they believe him that nothing wrong occurred.
All I’ve said throughout is this is a privacy violation, and it’s been handled terribly here, and I am not inclined to take Dr. Kesseler’s word on this, nor do I have access to the logs or the participants that would bring the truth out.
With respect to Professor Turley, once Dr. Kevin Kesseler admitted his actions, there should have been a public announcement and condemnation and Professor Turley should have demanded Kesseler release his code and delete his database and promise never to use it again at this site.
Dr. Slarti, anon might not realize it, but if you wished to pursue a tort claim for damages to your good name and reputation as an ethical software designer, there is something called ‘Discovery.’ As you probably know, an ISP is required to respond to a court order for production of records. When one wishes to keep one’s identity anonymous, it is not a good idea to raise one’s profile to the point where somebody might get serious about legal action. All of a sudden, names and addresses might become part of public documents.
Not being a lawyer, I am not sure of the details, but have been hanging around State and Federal courthouses for the past three dozen years, and have some sense of how things work. I am certain one of the lawyers here will be quick to correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions.
If you want the pattern, I can give you the equation*… 😉
What I’d really like is a poncho with that fractal as the design.
* Then all you have to do is color each pixel according to the root that the associated point in the complex plane converges to under Newton’s method. What kind of resolution do you get on a quilt?
Nice to see you back Slarti, and wearing that yet to be made quilt….
Woosty,
No
Woosty remains Feline,
No–anon is a liar.